Has Hyperextension Occurred On The Northwest Australian Shelf? The Effects of Pre-Existing Rift Architectures On Polyphase Rifted Margins.

Has Hyperextension Occurred on the
Northwest Australian Shelf?

The effects of pre-existing rift architectures on
polyphase rifted margins.
Daniel Tek
School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds.
Summer 2015
200632501
9959 Words
Submitted in partial fulfilment of requirements for the degree of Master of
Science, Structural geology with Geophysics.
Declaration of Academic Integrity

UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS
SCHOOL OF EARTH SCIENCES
To be attached to any essay, Dissertation, or project work submitted for

assessment as part of a University examination.
I have read the University regulations on Cheating and Plagiarism, and I

state that this piece of work is my own, and it does not contain any
unacknowledged work from any other sources.
Name:
[printed]
Daniel Tek
signed
Date
Programme of Study:
MSc Structural Geology with Geophysics.
ii
Acknowledgements
I would firstly like to thank Repsol and their Australia team for facilitating this project
and providing the data used. I would specifically like to thank my company supervisor
Dr. Oscar Frenandez for providing the opportunity to undertake this project and for
providing expert advice and support throughout.
Within the department, I thank my two internal supervisors: Simon Oldfield for his
insight and guidance, helping me to overcome many hurdles, and Dr. Douglas Paton for
his intellectually challenging suggestions helping to shape the project.
Special thanks are extended to Ben Craven for all of his support, technical or otherwise,
during often challenging times when using certain softwares.
To all of my peers, especially my project peer William Eaton, who have helped make
the project and the year an enjoyable experience I would like to express my gratitude.
Finally, my appreciation goes out to my parents and my girlfriend who have helped me
through this challenging yet rewarding year.
Software Used:
Petrel 2013 (Schlumberger) Seismic interpretation.
Move 2015 (Midland Valley Depth conversion.
FlexDecomp (Badley Geoscience) Backstripping.
Microsoft Excel 2010 Backstripping.
CorelDraw Cconstruction of images.
ArcMap Georeferencing images.
Microsoft Word 2010 Writing the thesis.
iii
Abstract
The Northern Carnavon, Roebuck and Browse basins cover the majority of the
northwest Australian passive margin. The margin has experienced a complex, polyphase
extensional history leading to the accumulation of over 20km thick sediments in places.
Although the presence of a Permian rift phase has long been documented, it remains
poorly understood and thus, the pre-Triassic basin fill is often ignored. This study has
attempted to determine the nature of this early, uncomprehended rift event using a
suite of geophysical data and a number of geological interpretation techniques and
investigate its effect on any subsequent extension.
The findings of this report have revealed that, during a Permian extension event,
hyperextension has occurred in the Northern Carnavon, Roebuck and Browse basins
which has led to the exhumation and possible partial serpentinization of the uppermost
lithospheric mantle. It is proposed that the presence of this pre-existing hyperextended
rift architecture has heavily influenced the second (Late Jurassic Early Cretaceous)
rifting event that eventually led to the onset of oceanic spreading. The creation of
lithospheric heterogeneities and the presence of a serpentinite slip surface from
Permian hyperextension are thought to control the nature of Jurassic Cretaceous
stretching, making it highly depth dependent.
Models for the evolution of uncomprehended features seen on the NW shelf, such as
the Tres Hombres Dome and the Wombat Plateau have been presented. These could
prove of interest for further study.
iv
List of Contents
Preamble
Declaration of Academic Integrity________________________________________________________i
Acknowledgements________________________________________________________________________iii
Abstract_____________________________________________________________________________________iv
List of Contents_____________________________________________________________________________v
List of Figures_____________________________________________________________________________viii
1. Introduction__________________________________________________________________1
1.1. Theoretical Background____________________________________________________2
1.2. Regional Setting___________________________________________________________14
1.3. Geological Background____________________________________________________16
2. Aims & Objectives______________________________________________________________23

2.1. Aims___________________________________________________________________________24
2.2. Objectives__________________________________________________________________24
3. Data Quality & Availability________________________________________________25

3.1. Gravity Data___________________________________________________________________26
3.2. Magnetic Data_________________________________________________________________27
3.3. Well Data__________________________________________________________________28
3.4. Seismic Data___________________________________________________________________30
4. Methodology_________________________________________________________________36
4.1. Flow Chart__________________________________________________________________37
4.2. Gravity Interpretation Methods____________________________________________38
4.3. Magnetic Interpretation Methods___________________________________________39
4.4. Seismic-Well Tie_____________________________________________________________40
4.5. Seismic Interpretation Methods_____________________________________________41
4.6. Depth Conversion Methods__________________________________________________48
4.7. Backstripping Methods______________________________________________________50
5. Results________________________________________________________________________51
5.1. Preliminary Observations_________________________________________________52
5.2. Mesozoic/Cenozoic Structure______________________________________________59
5.3. Deep Structure____________________________________________________________75
5.4. Nature of the COB___________________________________________________________________77
5.5. Depth Conversion___________________________________________________________________79
5.6. Backstripping_______________________________________________________________________83
6. Analysis_______________________________________________________________________86
6.1. Interpretation of Deep Structure and Early Basin History_________________87
6.2. Structure of the Mesozoic and Cenozoic Basin Fill__________________________96
6.3. Deep Structure___________________________________________________________101
6.4. Other Interesting Features_______________________________________________________104
vi
7. Discussion___________________________________________________________________107
7.1. Geological Evolution of the NW Australian Shelf: a comparison with
published literature____________________________________________________________________108
7.2. Comparing the NW Shelf with Analogue Margins__________________________116
7.3. Some Remarks Regarding the Evolution of Polyphase Rifted Margins____118
7.4. Suggestions for Further Work____________________________________________________122
8. Conclusions__________________________________________________________________123
8.1. Concluding Remarks____________________________________________________________124
References______________________________________________________________________125
Appendices_____________________________________________________________________132
Appendix 1___________________________________________________________________________132
Appendix 2____________________________________________________________________________135
Appendix 3_______________________________________________________________________________139
Appendix 4_______________________________________________________________________________143
Appendix 5_______________________________________________________________________________149
vii
List of Figures
Figures
1.1.
Map of the NW Australian shelf showing the four main basins and the
p.3
main hydrocarbon producing fields [Marshall & Lang, 2013].

1.2.
Map of the NW Australian shelf showing the division of the main basins
p.3
into their sub-basins [Goncharov, 2004; Marshall & Lang, 2013; Google
Earth, 2015].
1.3.
Schematic sections contrasting the pure shear and simple shear models
p.5
of extension [after Buck et al, 1988].

1.4.
Strength-depth profiles contrasting lithospheric necking and lithospheric
p.6
faulting [after Lavier & Manatschal, 2006].

1.5.
Strength-depth profiles showing three variants of the jelly sandwich
p.6
model [after Burov & Watts, 2006; Lavier & Manatschal, 2006].
1.6.
Models showing the process of depth dependent stretching [after Davis &
p.8
Kusznir, 2004].
1.7.
Numerical model of lithospheric extension [after Kusznir et al, 2005].
p.8
1.8.
Model of the evolution of a hyperextended rifted margin [after Nagel &
p.10
Buck, 2007; Reston & Prez-Gussiny, 2007; Dor & Lundin, 2015].
1.9.
Schematic section of a hyperextended rift invoking a series of convex-
p.9
down faults [Lavier & Manatschal, 2006].

1.10.
Diagram defining domains of a hyperextended margin [after Sutra et al,
p.11
2013; Manatschal et al, 2015].

1.11.
Series of diagrams showing the evolution of the hyperextension and
p.12
depth dependent stretching end members of crustal extension [after

Nagel & Buck, 2007; Reston & Prez-Gussiny, 2007; Huismans &
Beaumont, 2011; Dor & Lundin, 2015].
1.12.
Strength-depth profiles contrasting extension from a slow rift with that
p.13
of a fast rift event.
viii
1.13.
Diagrams showing the difference between structure of an idealised
p.14
lithosphere and a real lithosphere [Manatschal et al, 2015].

1.14.
Evolutionary section showing the evolution of asymmetric rifted margins
p.15
[Brune et al, 2014].

1.15.
Summary image showing the tectonic history of the NW shelf [compiled
p.20
from Longley et al, 2002; Heine & Mullet, 2005; Metcalfe, 2013].
1.16.
Summary image showing the sequence stratigraphic classification for the
p.21
NW shelf and palaeogeographic maps of the NW shelf [compiled from

Longley et al, 2002].
1.17.
Palaeogeographic map showing a Permian rifting event [Stagg et al,
p.17
2004].
1.18.
Maps of the NW shelf showing sediment thicknesses and crustal
p.18
thicknesses [Goncharov, 2004].

1.19.
Section through the Northern Carnavon Basin from gravity foreward
p.19
modelling [Belgarde et al, 2015].

1.20.
Map showing the division of the NW shelf into rift zones [Belgarde et al,
p.19
2015].
3.1.
Satellite free-air gravity map of the NW shelf [Sandwell et al, 2013].
p.26
3.2.
Aeromagnetic anomaly map of the NW Shelf with basin outlines marked
p.27
[Petrel, 2013].
3.3.
Location map showing the position of the Huntsman 1 well.
p.28
3.4.
Chronostratigraphic chart showing key horizons provided by Repsol
p.29
acting as a pseudo-well.
3.5.
Image showing multiples in section 128_01.
p.33
3.6.
Image showing migration smiles in section 95_07.
p.33
3.7.
Image showing the effects of annealing on section 128_05.
p.34
3.8.
Seismic section 120_01 showing the degradation of seismic imaging with
p.35
ix
increasing depth.
3.9.
Image showing the difference in seismic imaging between surveys
p.35
120_03 and db98_224.
4.1.
Image of a gravity high showing the cross-referencing process between
p.38
gravity, magnetic anomaly and bathymetry maps.

4.2.
Image of the Argo Abyssal Plain showing alignment of magnetic
p.39
anomalies in oceanic crust.

4.3.
Image showing the 3D location of the Huntsman 1 well and its well tops.
p.40
4.4.
Location map showing the four key interpreted seismic sections: 128_05,
p.41
120_14, 120_01 and 128_03.

4.5.
Segment of line 120_01 showing the process of inferring the basement
p.45
structure.
4.6.
Segment of line 128_03 showing the process of inferring the moho.
p.46
4.7.
Map of the NW shelf showing the seed grid for the Top Permian horizon
p.47
and the boundary polygons for all surfaces and thickness maps made.
4.8.
Velocity model for the NW shelf.
p.49
4.9.
Image showing the process of backstripping line 120_01 with a factor of p.50
1.
5.1.
Thickness maps between: Seabed - Top Permian, Seabed - Base Tertiary,
p.52
Base Tertiary - Top Syn-R2, Top Syn-R2 - Early Jurassic, Early Jurassic Intra-Triassic, and Intra-Triassic - Top Permian.
5.2.
Satellite image showing the bathymetry of the NW Australian shelf [after
p.56
Google Maps, 2015].

5.3.
Interpreted gravity map of the NW shelf.
p.57
5.4.
Interpreted magnetic map of the NW shelf.
p.58
5.5.
Images of section 120_01 showing: (A) section with Mesozoic/Cenozoic
p.59
horizons interpreted; (B) the uninterpreted section; (C) the section

displayed with no vertical exaggeration; (D) a key to the interpreted
seismic horizons; (E) location map of the line.
5.6.
Partial sections of line 120_01 showing two synforms present in the
p.61
section.
5.7.
Representative partial section showing horizons between the Top
p.62
Permian and the Seabed, and their internal structure.

5.8.
p.63

5.9.
p.65

5.10.
p.67

5.11.
Surface map of the Top Permian horizon showing the axes of the two
p.69
synforms shown in seismic line 120_01, their NE-SW trends, and lateral
extents.
5.12.
Image showing coastward (SE) dipping faults cutting the Top Permian,
p.70
Intra-Triassic, Late-Triassic U.C., and Early Jurassic horizons in the SE of

section 128_03.
5.13.
Image showing the SE of line 128_03 showing the Late_Triassic U.C.
p.71
truncating strata and a fanning of dip below the Top Permian.

5.14.
Images showing the nature of the Base Syn-R2 and Top Syn-R2 horizons
p.72
and the package between them.

5.15.
Map of the Tres Hombres Dome shown in the Top Permian horixon
p.73
xi
showing its symmetrical nature.

5.16.
Images showing the location, bathymetric expression and seismic image
p.74
of the canyon surrounding the Wombat Plateau

5.17.
Part of line 120_01 showing the positions of basement highs based on the
p.75
nature of synformal structures.

5.18.
Part of line 120_01 showing a sediment package exhibiting a fanning of
p.76
dip to the NW of the large basement high in the section.

5.19.
Image of the COB seen in line 120_01. The transition is sharp and
p.77
evidenced by a cliff at the shelf edge.

5.20.
Image showing the COB in line 128_05, NW of the Wombat Plateau. The
p.78
COB is much less obvious here, it is gradational over 90km.

5.21.
Map of the COB surrounding the Argo Abyssal Plain.
p.78
5.22.
Depth converted line 120_01 showing (A) location map of the seismic
p.80
line; (B) 2x vertical exaggerated section; (C) 1:1 section showing the true
geometries of the basement structures and the sediments above.
5.23.
Depth converted line 128_05 showing (A) location map of the seismic
p.81
line; (B) 2x vertical exaggerated section; (C) 1:1 section showing the true
geometries of the basement structures and the sediments above.
5.24.
Figure 5.24. Depth converted line 128_03 showing (A) location map of
p.82
the seismic line; (B) 2x vertical exaggerated section; (C) 1:1 section
showing the true geometries of the basement structures and the
sediments above.
5.25.
Key to the depth converted units.
p.79
5.26.
Backstripped section showing line 120_01 restored to sea level.
p.84
5.27.
p.85
5.28.
p.83
6.1.
Schematic diagrams showing the evolution of seismic line 120_01 to the
p.87
Top Permian horizon.
xii
6.2.
Schematic diagrams showing the pitfalls in the classification of necked
p.88
and hyperextended zones.

6.3.
Fully interpreted section of line 120_01 including basement structure.
p.90
6.4.
p.93
6.5.
Interpretive structure contour map of the Roebuck and north part of the
p.91
Northern Carnavon basins.

6.6.
p.94
6.7.
p.95
6.8.
3D image of the study area showing the geometry and lateral extents of
p.92
fault blocks along the basin.

6.9.
Figure 6.9. Map showing the basement terrains of Australia, used to
p.92
identify structural trends near the NW shelf [OZ Seebase, 2005].

6.10.
Key to the megasequences described in this section and the horizons they
p.96
encompass.
6.11.
Schematic diagrams showing the interpretation of spreading direction
p.98
from magnetic anomalies.

6.12.
Stereonet showing the trends of faulting on the NW shelf and the likely
p.99
events that caused them.

6.13.
Diagram of the COB surrounding the Argo Abyssal Plain with a magnified
p.100
section containing a strain ellipse explaining the formation of ENE-WSW

striking normal faults at the margin.
6.14.
Bathymetry map of the COB surrounding the Argo Abyssal Plain showing
p.101
the apparently small scale structural variability associated with the COB.
6.15.
Schematic diagrams showing the development of the COB at oblique
p.102
transform margins.
6.16.
Diagram explaining the evolution of a solely transform margin [Bird,
p.103
2001].
6.17.
Evolutionary sections showing the evolution of the Wombat Plateau.
p.105
6.18.
Schematic sections of line 120_14 showing the possible evolutions of the
p.106
Tres Hombres Dome.

7.1.
Cross sections across the Northern Carnavon Basin taken from the
p.109
locations shown in fig. 7.2. (A-A on map A; B-B on map B).

xiii
7.2.
Maps of the NW shelf dividing the shelf and its constituent basins into
p.110
hyperextended, necked and stretched zones.

7.3.
Potential models for the onset of oceanic spreading during R2.
p.111
7.4.
Three very simplified sections through: the NW Australian shelf, the
p.117
Norwegian Margin, and the Namibian Margin for use in comparison.

7.5.
Schematic sections showing the idealised evolution of a symmetrical
p.121
polyphase rifted margin that has undergone a period of hyperextension, a

period of complete lithospheric re-equilibration, and another period of
stretching.
Tables
3.1.
Location maps and basic information about each seismic survey used.
p.30
4.1.
Flow chart showing the order in which the methods were carried out.
p.37
4.2.
Table showing the key Mesozoic/Cenozoic horizons, their seismic
p.42
characteristics, the reason for picking these horizons, any uncertainty

faced when picking, and whether the interpretation has been expanded
across the shelf in a 3D interpretation.
7.1.
Summary table showing the geodynamic and tectonic evolution of the
p.113
NW Australian shelf.
Graphs
4.1.
Graph showing the effect on the Top Permian horizon for each of the
p.48
different depth conversion scenarios.
Equations
1.1.
Equation for stretching factor.
p.7
7.1.
Metamorphic reaction equation showing the dehydration of lizardite to
p.119
form talc, forsterite, clinochlore and fluid.
xiv
Appendices
Appendix 1. Location maps for all the seismic surveys provided by Repsol.
p.132
Appendix 2. Sections testing the effect of the velocity model and compaction
p.135
curve on the depth conversion of section 120_01.

Appendix 3. Sections showing the process of backstripping section 120_01 using p.139
a variable factor.
Appendix 4. Seed grids and surfaces generated for horizons: Top Permian,
p.143
Intra-Triassic, Early Jursassic, Top Syn-R2, Base Tertiary and Seabed. These
horizons have been used to generate thickness maps.
Appendix 5. A3 location map of the NW shelf is inserted as a loose sheet for
p.149
convenience.
xv
1. Introduction
1. Introduction
1.1. Regional Setting:

The northwest Australian shelf comprises four separate basins: the Northern Carnavon,
Roebuck (or Offshore Canning [Longley et al, 2002]), Browse, and Bonaparte basins (fig.
1.1). Although many of the near-coastal sub-basins hold significant hydrocarbon
resources, the deeper water outer shelf remains relatively underexplored (fig. 1.1).
The Northern Carnavon Basin can be divided into two zones: a series of en-echelon
rift-related sub-basins bound to the SE by the Pilbara Block and to the NW by the
Rankin and Exmouth platforms; the Exmouth Plateau, which lies NW of the Rankin
Platform, is a broad sedimentary platform which contains little internal structure. The
basin is bordered by the Argo, Gascoyne and Cuvier abyssal planes to the north, west
and south respectively (fig. 1.2).
The Roebuck and Browse basins are also sub-divided based on structural divisions. To
its NW the Browse basin also extends into a broad platform, the Scott Plateau, which is
also less explored than the rest of the shelf (fig. 1.2).
Numerous studies have attempted to determine the tectonic and palaeogeographic
evolution of the shelf [Longley et al, 2002; Heine & Muller, 2005; Chongzhi et al, 2013;
Marshall & Lang, 2013; Metcalfe, 2013; Geoscience Australia, 2015a] however few have
tried to constrain the geodynamic evolution of the area [Driscoll & Karner, 1998; Karner
& Driscoll, 1999; Goncharov, 2004; Belgarde et al, 2015]. This study will focus on
determining the deep structure and thus the geodynamic evolution of the lesser studied
Roebuck Basin and adjacent parts of the Northern Carnavon and Browse basins (fig.
1.2).
1. Introduction
Figure 1.1. Map of the NW Australian basins showing the locations of major oil and
gas fields in the area with field names in the legend. The largest hydrocarbon
accumulations are in the coastal parts of the Northern Carnavon Basin and in the
middle Browse Basin [Marshall & Lang, 2013].
Figure 1.2. Map of the NW shelf showing the locations of the four major basins,
their constituent sub-basins and the surrounding abyssal plains. The pink box
indicates the area of interest for this study [Goncharov, 2004; Marshall & Lang,
2013; Google Earth, 2015].
3
1. Introduction
1.2. Teoretical Background:

1.2.1. Theoretical Development:
The subsidence history of sedimentary basins has been a contentious issue since the
development of the McKenzie [1978] uniform stretching model (fig. 1.3a). Commonly
termed the pure shear model [Buck et al, 1988], this theory posits that the whole
lithosphere is stretched as one with deformation being accommodated by faulting in the
upper crust and necking in the lithospheric mantle (fig. 1.3a). Post-rift subsidence
deposits are formed from the thermal relaxation and contraction of the lithospheric
mantle [McKenzie, 1978; Jarvis & McKenzie, 1980; Le Pichon & Sibuet, 1981; Houseman
& England, 1986]. Although the McKenzie model holds true for several intra-continental,
failed rift systems, it fails to explain thick post-rift deposits seen along many of the
worlds passive margins requiring larger lithospheric stretching than that shown by the
crust [Davis & Kusznir, 2004].
The Wernicke [1981] simple shear model [Buck et al, 1988] (fig. 1.3b) accounts for the
discrepancy between fault-dominated crustal extension and lithospheric thermal
subsidence by invoking a large, convex-down detachment that cuts to the
asthenosphere [Wernicke, 1981; Wernicke & Burchfiel, 1982]. This model also provides
an explanation for the highly asymmetric nature of some conjugate margins, and for
vast terrains of exhumed mantle observed offshore Iberia [Brun & Beslier, 1996].
Despite allowing for thick passive margin deposits, the model is invalidated by the
upper plate paradox [Driscoll & Karner, 1998] which states that all passive margins
(including conjugate pairs) correspond to the upper plate (hanging wall).
The main distinction between the two aforementioned models is the process by which
the lithospheric mantle is thinned and eventually broken. The pure shear model
accommodates this thinning by lithospheric necking [Zuber & Parmentier, 1986] (fig.
1.4.a) and the simple shear model by lithospheric faulting (fig. 1.4.b).
1.2.2. Rheological Structure of the Lithosphere:

The jelly sandwich model (fig. 1.5) is the generally accepted model explaining the
strength of the lithosphere [Burov & Watts, 2006]. There are three variations of the
model commonly used in numerical modelling (fig 1.4). Although most studies use the
model shown in fig.1.5.a, the lithospheres inherent rheological structure can have a
4
1. Introduction
large effect on rift architecture [Burov & Diament, 1995; Burov & Poliakov, 2001;
Reston & Prez-Gussiny, 2007; Manatschal et al, 2015] so it is important to check
which model is used.
Figure 1.3. Schematic models showing: (A) the McKenzie [1978] pure shear
model with distributed thinning throughout the crust and lithospheric mantle;
(B) the Wernicke [1981] simple shear model with a lithosphere-cutting low
angle detachment providing increased subsidence in the hanging wall [after
Buck et al, 1988].
1. Introduction
Figure 1.4. Diagrams showing the two models of deformation in the lithospheric
mantle: (A) lithospheric necking, where stretching of the lithospheric mantle
allows for upwelling of hot asthenosphere which raises the frictional-viscous
transition thus allowing for viscous deformation of the lower lithosphere, the
process is then self-perpetuating [after Zuber & Parmentier, 1986]; (B)
lithospheric faulting, where the competent upper mantle acts in a brittle manner
[after Lavier & Manatschal, 2006].
Figure 1.5. Diagrams showing the three

commonly used variants of the jelly
sandwich model of crustal rheology: (A)
brittle upper crust, weak lower crust,
competent lithospheric mantle; (B) crust
split into felsic and mafic each consisting
of a competent upper and weak lower,
all above a competent mantle; (C) whole
mafic crust is competent [after Burov &
Watts, 2006; Lavier & Manatschal, 2006].
1. Introduction
1.2.3. Depth Dependent Stretching:

Depth dependent stretching (DDS), a variant of the pure shear model, recognises a
common discrepancy between whole lithospheric stretching factor (eq. 1.1) and
crustal factor.
0
1
Equation 1.1. stretching factor, where: t0 = original thickness, and t1 = present

day crustal thickness [after Davis & Kusznir, 2004].
DDS requires a decoupling of deformation between the crust and the lithospheric
mantle by the lower crust; the upper crust detaches onto a lower crustal shear zone (fig.
1.6). The basic principle behind DDS is that the lithospheric mantle is thinned more than
the crust and the decoupling provided by the lower crust means that there is often a
spatial discrepancy between the axis of crustal thinning and the axis of lithospheric
necking (fig. 1.6.b). When the lithosphere thermally re-equilibrates, subsidence
indicated by post rift sedimentation exceeds that indicated by upper crustal faulting
[Davis & Kusznir, 2004; Kusznir et al, 2005]. Although DDS has traditionally been
applied along commonly termed volcanic margins such as NW Australia [Driscoll &
Karner, 1998] and the Norwegian margin [Kusznir et al, 2005], numerical models have
tried to accommodate for the exhumed mantle seen in some non-volcanic margins (fig.
1.7). The main downfalls of DDS are: (1) although mantle exhumation can be accounted
for in numerical models, it doesnt account for the commonly observed lower crustpenetrating faults such as those offshore Norway and Angola [Osmundsen et al, 2002;
Unternehr et al, 2010]; (2) DDS fails to account for the cooling and solidification of the
lower crust with increasing stretching (fig. 1.8).
1. Introduction
Figure 1.6. Diagrams showing the process of DDS: (A) shows the lithospheric
mantle being thinned massively while the crust is thinned only slightly following
the same axis; (B) shows a scenario where the lithospheric thinning axis is offset
from the crustal thinning axis [after Davis & Kusznir, 2004].
Figure 1.7. Numerical models of lithospheric extension in: (A) non-volcanic

margin explaining the presence of exhumed mantle at the continent-ocean
boundary; (B) volcanic margin where the zone of exhumation is much narrower
[after Kusznir et al, 2005].
1. Introduction
1.2.4. Hyperextension:
In contrast to DDS, hyperextension is defined as stretching of the crust such that the
lower and upper crust become coupled and embrittled, allowing major faults to
penetrate to the mantle, leading to partial hydration (serpentinization) of the
uppermost mantle [Dor & Lundin, 2015, pp95]. If extension then continues,
lithospheric mantle can be exhumed and this process allows for a consistent for the
entire lithosphere. Early models built on the simple shear model, invoking a series of
convex-down faults (fig. 1.9) [Lavier & Manatschal, 2006] in order to solve the upper
plate paradox. More recent studies [Nagel & Buck, 2007; Reston & Prez-Gussiny, 2007;
Karner et al, 2007] have adopted lithospheric necking as the key process thinning the
lithospheric mantle (fig. 1.8). The definition of the hyperextension process is defined
above, but the classification of sub-terranes at hyperextended margins still lacks
consensus. Sutra et al [2013] and Belgarde et al [2015] have defined zones of
stretching, necking, and hyperextension (fig. 1.10), these zones will be used in this
study. Because hyperextension has been developed for commonly termed non-volcanic
margins such as offshore Iberia [Lavier & Manatschal, 2006; Sutra & Manatschal, 2012],
it fails to explain the depth dependency of stretching seen at many margins [Kusznir et
al, 2005].
Figure 1.9. Diagram of a rift system in which lithospheric extension is being

accommodated by a series of convex-down detachment faults. Note the
lithospheric structure follows that of fig. 1.5.c [Lavier & Manatschal, 2006].
1. Introduction
Figure 1.8. Series of schematic diagrams showing the evolution of a

hyperextended rifted margin: (A) thermally equilibrated continental crust with a
rheological structure equivalent to fig. 1.5.a; (B) distributed stretching
accommodated by faulting in the upper crust and lithospheric necking in the
lithospheric mantle, decoupled by the ductile lower crust; (C) Strain localises
necking in the lithospheric mantle, the lower crust has been cooled by thinning
and is now solid allowing faults to penetrate, hydrate, and detach onto the
lithospheric mantle; (D) the upper crust breaks apart and exposes the exhumed
mantle; (E) the remaining lithospheric mantle breaks apart and sea-floor
spreading is initiated [after Nagel & Buck, 2007; Reston & Prez-Gussiny, 2007;
Dor & Lundin, 2015].
10
1. Introduction
Figure 1.10. Diagram defining the different domains of a hyperextended

continental margin: innate crust shows no major upper crustal faulting and
possibly a small amount of lower crustal thinning; stretched crust contains
upper crustal faults which detach onto the lower crust; necked crust is where
the lower crust has become brittle and deep crustal faults decolle onto
serpentinized mantle; hyperextended terrains are those with exhumed mantle
exposed under the post-rift sediments [after Sutra et al, 2013; Belgarde et al,
2015].
1.2.5. Current Theoretical Understanding:

With increased understanding of volcanics at passive margins, the traditional labels of
volcanic and non-volcanic classification is becoming redundant; it is now understood
that most margins go through periods of volcanism [Davis & Kusznir, 2004; Huismans &
Beaumont, 2011]. Because of this, more recent models of passive margin formation
have acknowledged that DDS and hyperextension are by no means mutually exclusive
but instead part of a two end-member system (fig. 1.11) [Kusznir & Karner, 2007;
Huismans & Beaumont, 2011; Brune et al, 2014; Belgarde et al, 2015; Manatschal et al,
2015]. On one end of this idealised system sits pure DDS, where the lithospheric
mantle reaches breakup leaving the crust fairly undeformed. At the other end lies
hyperextension where the crust and the mantle are stretched equally (fig. 1.11).
11
B - Hyperextension end member.
Figure 1.11. Series of diagrams showing the two end members of the crustal stretching
model: (A) evolution of a purely hyperextended margin (fig. 1.8); (B) evolution of a margin
that has undergone heavily depth dependent stretching in which the lower crust stays
ductile for longer because of asthenospheric upwelling [after Nagel & Buck, 2007; Reston &
Prez-Gussiny, 2007; Huismans & Beaumont, 2011; Dor & Lundin, 2015]. Note that all the
strength-depth profiles relate to the central rift axis.
- Depth dependent stretching end

member.
1. Introduction
12
1. Introduction
In understanding lithospheric deformation, it is important to thoroughly comprehend
its structure. In simplified continental crust (fig. 1.5.a), the lithosphere-asthenosphere
boundary and upper crust-lower crust boundary are both largely temperature
dependent, whereas the moho corresponds to a compositional change. When the
lithosphere is stretched, upwelling of asthenosphere will heat the lithosphere above and,
when the crust is stretched and thinned, the surface temperature will cool the lower
crust. Logically, rift timing will affect the nature of rifting [Prez-Gussiny & Reston,
2001] (fig. 1.12): a slow rift will allow thermal re-equilibration of the lithosphereasthenosphere boundary and therefore cooling of the lower crust is more likely leading
to hyperextension; a fast rift will lead to rapid upwelling of the asthenosphere and
therefore a longer decoupling between the upper crust and the lithospheric mantle. Not
only does this make rifting time dependent, but also heavily temperature dependent
[Manatschal et al, 2015].
Figure 1.12. Strength-depth profiles showing the effect that rift speed has on the
structure of lithosphere that has been stretched by the same amount: (A)
original crustal state following the jelly sandwich model (fig. 1.5.a); (B)
lithospheric structure after slow rifting, where the lithospheric mantle has time
to partially thermally re-equilibrate during rifting; (C) lithospheric structure
after fast rifting, where hot asthenosphere heats the lithosphere.
13
1. Introduction
Besides rift dynamics (timing and temperature), rift-independent factors also
influence the evolution of a rifted margin, broadly classified as inheritance. Manatschal
et al [2015] define three types of lithospheric inheritance (fig. 1.13):
(1) Thermal inheritance the ambient crustal geotherm at the onset of rifting. This
broadly corresponds to the age and thickness of the lithosphere.
(2) Compositional inheritance usually refers to the inherent strength-depth profile
followed by the lithosphere. However, compositional variations are also present
within the lithospheric mantle and the crust.
(3) Structural inheritance refers not only to crustal and lithospheric internal
structures (faults etc.), but also the overall rheological layers of the lithosphere.
Figure 1.13. Diagrams showing the difference between (A) the idealised
lithospheric structure used to model continental deformation; (B) a real
lithosphere with inheritance taken into account. This example is from the
reconstructed Variscan belt along which the Iberian margin is thought to have
broken [Manatschal et al, 2015].
14
1. Introduction
Recent theoretical developments have advanced our understanding of idealised,
symmetric rifting, however complications that are still poorly understood include: the
formation asymmetric conjugate margins (fig. 1.14) (Brune et al [2014] explain these
using lower channel flow and rift migration); and polyphase rifting events.
Figure 1.14. Model showing how rift migration can create asymmetry in
conjugate continental margins [Brune et al, 2014].
15
1. Introduction
1.3. Geological Background:

1.3.1. Tectonic History:
The tectonic history is related to the breakup of Gondwana [Chongzhi et al, 2013]. Since
the early Permian, the NW Australian shelf has undergone a complex subsidence history
involving a Permian phase of extension (R1), a Triassic compressional event, and a
second, Jurassic-Cretaceous epispode of extension (R2) (fig. 1.15: see page 20) [Heine &
Muller, 2005; Metcalfe, 2013]. In places, over 20km thick sedimentary deposits have
accumulated upon pre-Permian basement [Goncharov, 2004; Metcalfe, 2013].
1.3.2. Sedimentary History:

Due to the scale of the NW Australian shelf, there are significant lateral geological
changes, therefore making a lithostratigrpahic approach to basin-correlation unrealistic
[Marshall & Lang, 2013]. In response to this, a regional sequence stratigraphic
classification scheme is most commonly used (fig. 1.16: see pages 21 & 22) (first devised
by Longley et al [2002]). Due to the abundant seismic and well constraints on the
Mesozoic and Cenozoic stratigraphy, the sequence stratigraphic approach has become
commonplace for most Mesozoic-Cenozoic sediments, and has allowed detailed
palaeogeographic interpretations of the late Triassic-early Cretaceous (fig. 1.16).
However, the deeper and older stratigraphy are scarcely studied and are only drilled on
structural highs [Belgarde et al, 2015b]. Atop the Bedout High within the Roebuck
Basin, there is interpreted to be predominantly limestone and sandstone unit topped by
the Bedout Volcanics, no thicknesses are given [Longley et al, 2002; Marshall & Lang
2013; Geoscience Australia, 2015b]
1.3.3. Geodynamic Work on NW Australian Shelf:

1.3.3.1. Permian Extension (R1):
Due to good data availability and a good understanding of post-Permian Gondwana
breakup, the majority of early geodynamic studies on the NW shelf focus on R2 (fig. 1.15)
and the pre-Triassic is classified as pre-rift [Longley et al, 2002, Marshall & Lang, 2013].
The generally accepted model of Permian extension is that of a large sag basin related to
separation of the Cimmerian Continent [Karner & Driscoll, 1999] (fig. 1.15), however, to
accommodate such thick sedimentary deposits, significant lithospheric thinning must
have occurred. Stagg et al [2004] first interpreted a Permian failed rift stage between
16
1. Introduction
the West Burma Block and the Australian Continent (fig. 1.17). Seismic velocity
modelling (fig. 1.18) [Goncharov, 2004], and isostatic residual gravity interpretation
across the shelf [Lockwood, 2004] have both shown that the NW shelf is covered by
<18km of sediment onto 4km thick crust (compared to an onshore continental
thickness of 35-40km [Goncharov, 2004], supporting the argument for extensive crustal
thinning. Proceedings from the recent APPEA 2015 conference have provided further
insights into the deep structure of the NW shelf. Belgarde et al [2015] have used gravity
forward modelling and new deep reflection seismic, and have proposed the area may
have experienced hyperextension during the Permian (fig. 1.19); the shelf is divided
into stretched necked and hyperextended zones (fig. 1.20).
Figure 1.17. Map showing the rifting on the NW Shelf Margin (NWSM). MVL
stands for Mount Victoria Land is equivalent to the West Burma Block [Stagg et
al, 2004].
1.3.3.2. Jurassic-Cretaceous Extension (R2):

The late Jurassic rifting of the West Burma Block is well studied and understood as
ample, good quality seismic and well data are available for the shallow sediments
[Goncharov, 2004]. Karner & Driscoll [1999] found for the Northern Carnavon basin
that the extension and subsequent thermal subsidence pertaining to R2 is highly depthdependent. Although they invoke an unrealistic ramp-flat-ramp detachment fault, the
study provides a maximum lithospheric factor of 2.65 and a maximum upper crustal
factor of 1.15.
17
1. Introduction
Figure 1.18. Maps of the NW shelf showing: (A) sediment thickness (in km)
taken from seismic data; (B) crustal thickness (in km) taken from seismic
velocity modelling [Goncharov, 2004]
18
1. Introduction
Figure 1.19. Proposed cross section along line A-A across the Northern
Carnavon Basin (shown on fig. 1.20) derived from gravity forward modelling.
[Belgarde et al, 2015]
Figure 1.20. Map showing the division of the NW shelf into rift zones [Belgarde
et al, 2015].
19
Figure 1. 15. Summary image showing the tectonic history of the NW shelf [compiled from
Longley et al, 2002; Heine & Mullet, 2005; Metcalfe, 2013].
1. Introduction
20
1. Introduction
21
Figure 1.16. (pages 21 and 22) Summary image showing: (left) the sequence stratigraphic classification chart
for the NW shelf including each sequence stratigraphic package and their corresponding boundary horizons;
(right) palaeogeographic maps of the NW shelf through various stages of its evolution from the Triassic to the
Cretaceous [compiled from Longley et al, 2002].
1. Introduction
22
2. Aims & Objectives
23
2. Aims & Objectives
2.1. Aims:
To document the geodynamic and tectonic evolution of the NW Australian shelf.
To determine how many episodes of extension have been experienced in the area of
interest.
Belgarde et al [2015] propose that hyperextension has occurred during a Permian

rifting event. This study aims to test this interpretation and compare the lateral
extents of hyperextended, necked and stretched zones across the area of interest.
To find out whether DDS has occurred related to a second episode of rifting and to
test lithospheric factors presented by Karner & Driscoll [1999].
If the NW shelf has experienced multiple rifting events, this study aims to investigate
the nature of the relationship between the different phases.
2.2. Objectives:
Carry out a regional 3D seismic interpretation using regional 2D seismic data,

producing surfaces and thickness maps of key correlatable horizons to show broad
structural trends.
Use free-air gravity and magnetic anomaly data to support the findings of the
seismic interpretation.
Perform a detailed 2D seismic interpretation on four key, representative seismic

lines across the area of interest.
Use backstripping software to determine a whole lithospheric factor from any

post-rift sedimentation.
24
3. Data Quality & Availability
25
Figure 3.1. Satellite free-air gravity map of the NW shelf with basin locations marked. Map
mainly used for interpreting basin extents. Green box indicates the area of interest for this
study. Warm colours indicate gravity highs [Sandwell et al, 2013].
3.1. Gravity Data:
A global satellite free-air gravity grid has been used. The accuracy of the gravity
measurement is up to 1mGal with a spatial resolution of 7km (half a wavelength)
[Sandwell et al, 2013].
26
Figure 3.2. Aeromagnetic anomaly map of the NW Shelf with basin outlines marked. Grid
used primarily for interpretation of the ocean-continent boundary. The green box indicates
the area of interest warm colours indicate magnetic highs [Petrel, 2013].
3.2. Magnetic Data:
A global aeromagnetic grid has been used. The grid is available as an overlay in Petrel
2013, it has a 2 arc-minute resolution [Petrel, 2013].
27
3.3. Well Data:

3.3.1. Huntsman 1 Well:
Well data for across most of the NW shelf has been provided by Repsol as part of the
2012 Acreage Release data package from Geoscience Australia. Of these data, only one
in the area of interest is time-converted and contains the appropriate marker horizons:
the Huntsman 1 well (fig. 3.3). The well was drilled in 2007 by Woodside in the Beagle
Figure 3.3. Location map showing the position of the Huntsman 1 well. Line 120_01 is the
closest seismic line to the well so will be used to tie (see section 4).
Sub-Basin and penetrates to a depth of 4343.8m (4137.2ms-TWT).
28
3.3.2. Pseudo-Well:
Five key, regionally extensive horizons have been provided by Repsol in the form of a
pseudo well in the same location as the Huntsman 1 well (fig. 3.4).
Figure 3.4. Chronostratigraphic chart showing key horizons provided by Repsol

acting as a pseudo-well.
29
3.4. Seismic Data:

3.4.1. Data Availability:
Over 4,000 individual seismic lines within 89 surveys (app. 1) have been provided by
Repsol, compiled from Geoscience Australias NW shelf dataset; all of these lines are in
Two Way Time (TWT). Of these surveys, 6 have been used (table 3.1). The data were
provided as a Petrel 2013 project in coordinate system: WGS1984, UTM 51S.
Survey 110.
Survey Name: AGSO Survey 110
(SNOWS-2); Barrow/Dampier M.S.S.
Acquired By: Australian Government
Survey Organisation (AGSO).
Year of Survey: 1990.
Survey Location: Barrow and
Dampier sub-basins (release area
W07-01).
Spacing: N/A
Polarity: Positive.
Survey Depth: 16 s-TWT.
Survey 128.
Survey Name: AGSO Survey 128.
Acquired By: AGSO.
Survey Location: Northern Carnavon
Basin, Roebuck Basin, Browse Basin
(release area W11-07 and W11-08).
Spacing: N/A
Polarity: Positive.
Survey Depth: 16s-TWT.
30
Survey 095.
Survey Name: AGSO Marine Survey
95; Canning/Exmouth.
Acquired By: AGSO.
(release area W07-18).
Spacing: N/A
Polarity: Positive.
Survey Depth: 6-9s-TWT.
Survey 120.
Survey Name: AGSO Survey Marine
120 (SNOWS-3); Southern North
West Shelf.
Acquired By: AGSO.
Survey Location: Roebuck Basin
(release area W07-11).
Spacing: N/A
Polarity: Positive.
Survey 119.
Survey Name: AGSO Marine Survey
119; Browse Basin M.S.S.
Acquired By: AGSO.
Survey Location: Browse (release
area W07-09).
Spacing: N/A
Polarity: Positive.
31
Survey dc98.
Survey Name: Deep Water North
West Shelf Spec M.S.S.
Acquired By: GHD-Gardline Surveys
Party Ltd.
(release areas W11-7, W11-8 and
W11-9).
Spacing: 10km.
Polarity: Negative.
Table 3.1. Shows location maps for each of the surveys and basic information
about them.
3.4.2. Processing:
Processing information is not available for the seismic data provided, however there are
indications within the seismic as to the way the data has been processed:
(1) Amplitude Gain Correction The strength of some multiples suggests that an
amplitude gain may have been applied to AGSO surveys: 128, 95, 120 and 119
(fig. 3.5).
(2) Migration All surveys show migration smiles in the deep section (fig. 3.6).
(3) Annealing Has been used in order to create coherent reflectors. This can be
seen when viewing faults, where a fault may be well defined in shallow parts of
the section, in the deep section these faults may be masked due to annealing (fig.
3.7).
32
NW
SE
3s
16s
Figure 3.5. Seismic section 128_01 showing seabed multiples in the section (5x
vertically exaggerated).
SW
NE
3s
9s
Figure 3.6. Seismic section 95_07 showing large and strong migration smiles in
the deep section (5x vertically exaggerated).
33
NNW
SSE
2s
Figure 3.7. Part of seismic section

128_05 showing the effects of
annealing. The faults in the
shallow section are well defined
and easily picked however in the
deeper section (about 4-5
seconds) there appears to be a
series of coherent reflectors. This
could also be due to a
detachment horizon however
(discussed in section 5) (5x
vertically exaggerated).
9s
3.4.3. Data Quality:

The aforementioned processing artefacts all affect the quality of the seismic and,
consequently increase the uncertainty in interpretation. Aside from these factors, there
is also a definite degradation in data quality towards the deeper section from the
shallow section (fig. 3.8). There is also a discrepancy in data quality between different
surveys (fig. 3.9). Note, all seismic images will be shown in the red white blue colour
scheme where blues represent peaks.
34
NW
SE
0s
16s
Figure 3.8. Seismic section 120_01 with a dashed black line showing the depth
beneath which the seismic section becomes very unclear and shows very little
structure (10x vertically exaggerated).
1.5s
B
7s
C
Figure 3.9. Comparison between lines of two different surveys that run alongside
one another: (A) is a part of line 120_03, a deep regional survey. Very few faults
are visible in this section; (B) is a part of line dc98_224, a shallower regional
survey; (C) shows the faults that can be interpreted in line dc98_224 that are not
visible in line 120_03 (5x vertically exaggerated).
35
4. Methodology
36
4. Methodology
4.1. Flow Chart:
Table 4.1. Flow chart showing the order in which the following methods were
carried out, and the feedback between the different methods.
37
4. Methodology
4.2. Gravity Interpretation Methods:

A free-air gravity grid has been input into Petrel and inverted. Free-air gravity includes
a signature from: seafloor bathymetry, short wavelength features such as basement
highs or deep basins that would be best imaged using bouguer gravity, and moho
fluctuations usually imaged using isostatic residual gravity. Thus, to interpret short
wavelength features as required by this study, the gravity must be cross referenced
with the magnetic anomaly and bathymetry for said area (fig. 4.1).
250km
Figure 4.1. Image of a gravity high showing the cross-referencing process
between: (A) gravity; (B) magnetic anomaly; (C) Bathymetry. As there is no
bathymetric expression but there is both a gravity and magnetic high, this
feature is interpreted as a basinal feature.
38
4. Methodology
4.3. Magnetic Interpretation Methods:

A magnetic anomaly grid has been loaded as an overlay in Petrel As well as being used
alongside gravity data to interpret basement highs and other sedimentary features, the
magnetic anomaly of oceanic crust can provide information on the direction of seafloor
spreading (fig. 4.2).
250km
Figure 4.2. Image of the Argo Abyssal Plain showing the alignment of magnetic
anomalies in the oceanic crust. These lineaments can aid the interpretation of
oceanic spreading direction (see section 5).
39
4. Methodology
4.4. Seismic-Well Tie:

The Huntsman 1 well has been tied to lines 120_01 and dc98_107 as these are the
closest lines to the well (fig. 4.3). This well contains the depths of marker horizons Base
Tertiary and Early-Jurassic (see section 4.5.) at depths of 2.803s-TWT and 4.05s-TWT
respectively (fig. 4.3).
Figure 4.3. Image showing: (A) the location of the Huntsman 1 well relative to
sections 120_01 and dc98_107; (B) the depths of the well tops on the relevant
sections.
40
4. Methodology
4.5. Seismic Interpretation Methods:

Four key regional seismic sections have been interpreted in detail in order to get a
sense of any along-strike variability in structure: 128_05, 120_01, 128_03 and 120_14
(fig. 4.4), of which, section 120_01 has been analysed in most detail to determine the
structure of the Roebuck Basin. On these sections, 10 key horizons have been
interpreted, 6 of which are traceable in 3D (table 4.2). All horizon names provided by
Repsol [2015].
Figure 4.4. Map showing the locations of the four key interpreted seismic
sections: 128_05(Northern Carnavon Basin), 120_14 (Northern Carnavon &
Roebuck Basins), 120_01 (Roebuck Basin), and 128_03 (Browse Basin).
4.5.1. Mesozoic/Cenozoic Interpretation:

Due to the well imaged shallow seismic, the Mesozoic and Cenozoic sediments have
been interpreted (table 4.2) by loop tying round the area and jump correlating across
faults.
41
4. Methodology
Horizon
Seismic Characteristics
Reason for Picking
Seabed
Seabed reflection depends on N/A

polarity of survey (see section
3).
Base Tertiary
Strong trough at the base of a

large coastal prograding
system.
Characterised by onlaps in the
coastal parts of the section,
less visible in the oceanward
parts.
Top Syn-R2
Base Syn-R2
Uncertainty in Picking
Interpreted in
3D?
N/A
Yes
Regionally correlatable
seismic horizon so can be
easily identified on most
sections. Key time marker
between the Mesozoic and
Cenozoic (horizon provided in
Huntsman 1 well and Repsols
pseudo-well).
Lack of onlaps towards the

oceanward parts of the shelf can
make the horizon difficult to
identify.
Yes
Varies between peaks and

troughs.
Unconformity in places.
Top package with very
variable thickness.
Key tectonic event marker

[Repsol, 2015]. Also a
regionally correlatable seismic
horizon (horizon provided
Repsols pseudo-well).
In places, stratal truncations are

not obvious and in areas there are
no thickening strata making the
horizon difficult to interpret.
Yes

troughs.
Unconformity in places.
Top of rather continuous
thickness unit with largely
correlatable horizons.
Base of package with very
variable thickness.

[Repsol, 2015].
No erosional truncations are

visible in places and in some places
the horizon is not present.
No
42
4. Methodology
Early Jurassic
Late-Triassic UC.
Intra-Triassic
Strong trough.
In places downlaps are
present onto the top of the
horizon.
In the majority of the area it is
present within a relatively
continuous package.
In places the horizon is
heavily faulted.
Regionally correlatable
seismic horizon (horizon
provided in Huntsman 1 well
and Repsols pseudo-well).
Due to lateral facies variability

over such a large area as the NW
Australian shelf, it can be hard to
trace the horizon across the area
as the seismic character can
change in places. Jump correlating
across large faults can also be an
issue.
Yes
Major unconformity in places,

primarily atop structural
highs.
Identified by erosional
truncations.
Usually represents a
boundary between well
imaged (above) and largely
poorly imaged seismic
(below).

showing major erosion and
marks a change in general
seismic imaging (horizon
provided in Repsols pseudowell).
As erosion is localised around

structural highs, the horizon can
be very hard to pick, especially
across large distances. Faults are
often present within the shallower
sediments however they die out
before this horizon.
No
Strong trough atop a set of

3-4 peaks and troughs
within a largely transparent
package.
Heavily faulted in places.
Regionally correlatable strong

The horizon is within an area of

very poorly imaged stratigraphy
meaning that in areas this reflector
is not visible. The effects of
annealing within the poorly
imaged stratigraphy mean faults
are very hard to pick accurately.
Yes
43
4. Methodology
Top Permian
Top Oceanic Crust

troughs.
Top of a chaotic package of
high amplitude, discontinuous
reflectors.
Largely laterally extensive
however is absent in places.
Tectonically significant and

regionally correlatable strong
Lack of continuity in the chaotic

reflectors means that picking the
top of this package very difficult.
Strong trough atop a series of

2-4 high amplitude
reflections.
Very poorly imaged below
these reflections.
Covered by largely flat
sediments deposited as a
layer-cake.
Picked as a continuation of
Top Syn-R1.
Key regionally correlatable

tectonic marker [Repsol,
2015].
Nearing the continent-oceanboundary, the position of this

reflector becomes unclear.
Yes
No
Table 4.2. Showing the key Mesozoic/Cenozoic horizons, their seismic characteristics, the
reason for picking these horizons, any uncertainty faced when picking, and whether the
interpretation has been expanded across the shelf in a 3D interpretation.
44
4. Methodology
4.5.2. Interpretation of Deep Structure:

Due to the poor imaging of the deep section and thus the high degree of uncertainty in
its interpretation, the position of the Top Basement and the Moho have been
interpreted using infrequent seismic reflections and inferral from patterns recognised
within the shallow parts of the basin and from assumptions (figs. 4.5 & 4.6).
4.5.2.1. Picking Top Basement (Grey Horizon):
Within the Mesozoic/Cenozoic sediments (section 4.5.1), there are a series of
asymmetric synforms, assumed to be compactional in origin, which can be used to
identify basement highs and lows (fig. 4.5).
0s
Compactional Synform
10s
0s
Top Basement
Reflector?
Inferred Basement
Structure
11s
Figure 4.5. Segment of line 120_01 showing the process of inferring the
basement structure. (A) shows the section without the interpreted Top
Basement; (B) shows the section with the inferred basement (5x vertical
exaggeration).
45
4. Methodology
4.5.2.1. Picking the Moho (Red Horizon):
Warner [1987] states that, because of effects of seismic velocities and isostasy, in an
isostatically equilibrated system the Moho should always occur from 9-12s TWT. Based
on this key assumption and some sporadic reflectors around these depths, the moho has
been inferred (fig. 4.6).
0s
A
3s
6s
Possible Moho 9s
Reflection?
12s
0s
3s
6s
9s
12s
Figure 4.6. Segment of line 128_03 showing the process of inferring the moho.
(A) shows the lack of Moho reflectivity in the deep section; (B) shows the
inferred position of the Moho (5x vertical exaggeration).
46
4. Methodology
4.5.3. 3D Interpretation Methods:

Six regionally correlatable horizons have been picked across the area of interest: Seabed,
Base Tertiary, Top Syn-R2, Early Jurassic, Intra-Triassic and Top Permian. From these
interpretations, surfaces were then made for each of these horizons using Petrels
make/edit surface tool with a grid increment of 200 (x & y) and using the convergent
interpolation algorithm (fig. 4.7). To visualise the lateral sediment thickness variability,
TWT thickness maps have been made from these surfaces. The lateral discontinuity of
some horizons leads to a discrepancy in the regional extent of each horizon
interpretation, this then leads to uncertainty with thickness mapping. As a fault model
has not been created, the generated surfaces and thickness maps will only show broad
scale thickness.
Figure 4.7. Map of the NW shelf showing the seed grid for the Top Permian
horizon (pink lines) and the boundary polygons for all surfaces and thickness
maps made (yellow outline).
47
4. Methodology
4.6. Depth Conversion Methods:

Once interpreted, seismic sections 128_05, 120_01 and 128_03 have been depth
converted in Move 2015 to unearth the true structural geometries and to use in
backstripping (section 4.6). The velocity model has been derived from three sources (fig.
4.8):
(1) Averaged interval velocities from the Huntsman 1 well.
(2) Interval average of velocity modelled sections across the NW shelf [Goncharov,
2004].
(3) Global average of oceanic crust velocities given to the oceanic crust [white et al,
1992].
A different velocity model has been used for the oceanic and continental crust in which
the oceanic cover velocity is the average of the Top Syn-R2 to Seabed as the Base
Tertiary is unidentifiable.
Due to the uncertainty surrounding the velocity model, different scenarios have been
run within the range of 10% to test the models sensitivity to the velocity (app. 2.1).
Scenarios have also been run to test the effect of the three compaction curves available
in Move (app. 2.2). These scenarios prove that the velocity model is insensitive to
changes 10% and to different compaction curves (graph 4.1.).
Distance (km)
8200
8150
8100
8050
8000
7950
7900
7850
7800
0
Average
Scenario2
4000
Scenario3
6000
Scenario4
8000
10000
12000
14000
Depth (ms)
2000
Scenario5
Christie/Slater
Baldwin/Butler
Dixon
16000
18000
Graph 4.1. Showing the effect on the Top Permian horizon for each of the
different depth conversion scenarios mentioned above (for scenario parameters
see app. 2).
48
4. Methodology
Interval
Water
Base Tertiary
Seabed
Top Syn-R2 Base
Tertiary
Early Jurassic Top
Syn-R2
Intra Triassic Early
Jurassic
Top Permian Intra
Triassic
Top Basement Top
Permian
Moho Top
Basement
Oceanic Crust Cover
Oceanic Crust
Mantle
-10%
Average Velocity
(m/s)
+10%
N/A
1593
1400
1770
N/A
1947
2493
2770
3047
3267
3630
3993
3726
4140
4554
4500
5000
5500
4896
5440
5984
5913
6570
7227
2043
6390
7200
2270
7100
8000
2497
7810
8800
Figure 4.8. Velocity model for NW shelf.
49
4. Methodology
4.7. Backstripping Methods:

In order to work out a factor for any post-rift subsidence that has occurred, sections
128_05, 120_01 and 128_03 have been backstripped to the Top Syn-R2 horizon. After
exporting the depth converted horizons, backstripping has been carried out using Flex
Decomp. This method requires the experimentation of applying different factors in
order to restore the Top Syn-R2 to a flat datum (fig. 4.9). If the factor varies across
the section, as is predominantly the case for passive margins, using trial and error the
section can be restored using a variable factor (app. 3).
Flat Datum
Figure 4.9. Image showing the process of backstripping line 120_01 with a
constant factor of 1 to horizon Top Syn-R2 (top light blue above). (A) Original
section with 7x vertical exaggeration; (B) Section after removal of 2 post-rift
layers, the horizon is not restored to the flat datum so a higher and variable
stretching factor is required; (C) Shows the model used.
50
5. Results
51
5. Results
5.1. Preliminary Observations:

5.1.1. Thickness Maps:
TWT thickness maps have been created for 5 Mesozoic-Cenozoic intervals to show
general thickness variability and broad structural trends across the area (see fig. 4.7. for
location map) (fig. 5.1). The predominant structural trend derived from these maps is
NE-SW and, within the mapped area, most intervals show the thickest sediment over
the outer shelf.
Aside from uncertainty regarding the picking of horizons, the main uncertainty with
surface and thickness map generation is the issue with convergent interpolation
algorithm. Convergent interpolation does not take into account any predominant
structural trends and also falls down when interpreting areas with limited datapoints
(fig. 5.1.e); an interpretive contouring method would be favoured. It is also important
to note that oceanic cover sediments are not included in these maps.
Figure 5.1.a. Thickness between the Seabed and Top Permian horizons. It shows
a general thinning of the sediment towards the Argo Abyssal Plain (NW) and
towards the coast (SE). Thick sedimentary accumulations are generally aligned
in a NE-SW orientation with a broadening towards the SW of the map (the
Northern Carnavon Basin).
52
5. Results
Figure 5.1.b. Thickness between the Seabed and Base Tertiary horizons. It shows
the thinnest sediments towards the Argo Abyssal Plain and a broadly uniform
shelf with a trend of thicker sediments running NE-SW. There is an area of
thickening to the west of the section.
Figure 5.1.c. Thickness between the Base Tertiary and Top Syn-R2 horizons. It
shows the same broadly NW-SE trend as (a) and (b) however the thinnest areas
are not over the Abyssal Plain, instead the minimum sediment is over the
Northern Carnavon Basin.
53
5. Results
Figure 5.1.d. Thickness between the Top Syn-R2 and Early Jurassic horizons.
This interval is very variable in thickness and exhibits no definitive structural
trend however the thinnest sediments are around the Argo Abyssal Plain.
Figure 5.1.e. Thickness between the Early Jurassic and Intra-Triassic horizons.
The map shows an anomalously thick area in the NW, this is an artefact of the
convergent interpolation algorithm due to lack of data constraints. Where data
is available (along the shelf), there is a broad thickening towards the Northern
Carnavon Basin and thinning in the Roebuck Basin.
54
5. Results
Figure 5.1.f. Thickness between the Intra-Triassic and Top Permian horizons. It
shows minimum thicknesses around the Argo Abyssal Plain and towards coastal
regions. It also shows a broadly NE-SW trend.
5.1.2. Bathymetry Observations:

In order to interpret basinal features, bathymetry, free air gravity and magnetic data
have been used together. The extents of the shelf and the abyssal plains are well defined
by the bathymetry map (fig. 5.2). Between the abyssal plains (dark blue) and the shelf
(light blue) there is a broad platform with more internal structure. The Wombat Plateau
(fig. 1.1) is expressed as a topographic high near the edge of this platform.
55
5. Results
W.P.
Abyssal
Plain
Shelf
Figure 5.2. Satellite map showing the bathymetry of the NW Australian shelf. The
grey dotted lines outline interesting features and the boundary between the
shelf, a broad slightly deeper platform and the abyssal plains. W.P. Wombat
Plateau [after Google Maps, 2015].
5.1.3. Gravity Observations:

A basins gravity signature often reflects its basement structure and therefore, in
conjunction with bathymetry and magnetics, it can be used to identify basins and
basement highs. Fig. 5.3. shows an interpreted map showing trends in gravity anomalies.
Along the shelf there is a ridge of high gravity trending SW-NE, bordered by: (to the SE)
a thin gravity low also trending SW-NE, and (to the NW) a broader zone of low gravity.
The Wombat Plateau appears as a gravity high on the edge of a platform of relatively
uniform gravity. The boundary between Browse, Roebuck and the northern part of the
Northern Carnavon Basin and the abyssal plains are marked by gravity lows however to
the west of the Northern Carnavon Basin, the boundary is not as obvious.
56
5. Results
Figure 5.3. Gravity map of the NW shelf showing any major highs or lows shown,
main high-low boundaries are shown by the white dashed line. See fig. 3.1. for
the uninterpreted map with basin names. Warm colours indicate gravity highs.
5.1.4. Magnetic Observations:

Magnetic maps can also be indicative of basement structure, the sharpness of magnetic
anomalies is an indicator of their depth and the anomalies themselves often correspond
to basement highs. Fig. 5.4. shows the same NE-SW trending ridge as seen in the gravity.
Bordering the ridge to the NW is a platform containing little magnetic signature which
could represent a broad, thick sedimentary basin. The Wombat Plateau is expressed as a
magnetic high, as well as a gravity high, indicating that it is in fact a basinal feature. The
western boundary between the platform and the abyssal plains is better defined in the
magnetic map than the gravity. Within the abyssal plains, there are magnetic lineaments
trending both NE-SW and NNE-SSW.
57
5. Results
Figure 5.4. Magnetic map of the NW shelf showing the main features picked out
by magnetic anomalies (green dashed lines). Brown lines indicate lineaments in
the abyssal plains. See fig. 3.2. for the uninterpreted map with basin names.
Warm colours indicate magnetic highs.
58
5. Results
5.2. Mesozoic/Cenozoic Structure:

5.2.1 Line 120_01 (Roebuck Basin):
Because of the difference in interpretation confidence between the Mesozoic/Cenozoic sediments (horizons Top Permian Seabed) and any deeper structures, it is important to separate the observations
made regarding each of them.
C
Figure 5.5 (a-c). Section 120_01 showing: (A) 5x vertically exaggerated interpreted Mesozoic/Cenozoic horizons and their structure; (B) ) 5x vertically exaggerated uninterpreted section showing
the locations of figures presented later in the text; (C) interpreted section with no vertical exaggeration showing the true (time domain) expression of the section. See next page for 5.5 d & e.
59
Figure 5.5 (d & e). Showing: (D) a key to the seismic horizons and intervals displayed
above; (E) a location map showing seismic line 120_01.
5. Results
60
5. Results
5.2.1.1. Synformal Structures:

The most obvious feature on a large scale are the two large asymmetric synforms (fig.
5.6) separated by two highs. Within these synforms the intervals: Top Permian IntraTriassic, Intra Triassic Late-Triassic U.C., and Late-Triassic U.C. Early Jurassic all
seem to thicken. Between the Top Permian and the Late-Triassic U.C. there are no clear
onlaps indicating a possible compactional origin, however between the Late-Triassic U.C.
and the Early Jurassic distinct onlaps are visible (fig. 5.6.b).
Figure 5.6. Partial sections of line 120_01 showing two synforms (A & B) present
in the section. Onlaps are indicated by red arrows, truncated horizons are
purple.
5.2.1.2. Nature of the Late-Triassic U.C.:

Across much of the section, the Late-Triassic U.C. marks the boundary between the
relatively well imaged sediments above and poorly imaged seismic below. The nature of
the boundary is clearly unconformable (fig. 5.7) and is also the point at which many of
the faults seen in the Intra-Triassic horizon terminate (fig. 5.7).
5.2.1.3. Nature of Faulting:
All faults in the section show a normal sense of offset. Faulting in the section is very
minor, usually showing no discrete offset, and tends to be localised around the shelf
edge. Faults between the Late-Triassic U.C. and Top Syn-R2 terminate before or at the
Top Syn-R2 horizon and few are seen penetrating the Late-Triassic U.C (fig. 5.7).
61
5. Results
The package between the Top Permian and the Late-Triassic U.C. appears heavily
faulted in places however very few penetrate the Late-Triassic U.C. and none penetrate
the Top Permian.
Figure 5.7. Representative partial section showing horizons between the Top
Permian (pink) and the Seabed, and their internal structure. Purple arrows
indicate erosional truncations.
5.2.1.4. Nature of Top Syn-R2:

The package between the Early Jurassic horizon and the Top Syn-R2 shows onlaps at its
base and at its top it is truncated by the Top Syn-R2 horizon; the Base Syn-R2 is absent
(5.7).
Above the Top Syn-R2, the sediments form a wedge that contains a series of
prograding clinoforms which is internally structureless (fig. 5.5).
62
5. Results
5.2.2. Lateral Variability in Structure:
Line 128_05
Seismic sections 128_05, 120_14, and 128_03 are presented to show the lateral variability in structure.
C
63
5. Results
64
5. Results
Line 120_14
A
65
5. Results
66
5. Results
Line 128_03
67
5. Results
68
5. Results
5.2.2.1. Synformal Structures:

The synformal structure in the SE of line 120_01 can be carried NE along a NE-SW
structural trend to line 128_03 (5.11) where it is expressed as a fault (fig. 5.12).
The synform around the middle of line 120_01 can roughly be traced SW along a NESW structural trend to line 120_14 (figs. 5.11).
Figure 5.11. Surface map of the Top Permian horizon showing the axes of the
two synforms shown in seismic line 120_01, their NE-SW trends, and lateral
extents.
69
5. Results
Figure 5.12. Image showing coastward (SE) dipping faults cutting the Top
Permian, Intra-Triassic, Late-Triassic U.C., and Early Jurassic horizons in the SE
of section 128_03.
5.2.2.2. Nature of the Late-Triassic U.C.:

The erosive nature of this horizon is most evident in line 120_01 however it is evident
in lines 120_14 and 128_03 (fig. 5.13).
5.2.2.3. Nature of Faulting:
In contrast to line 120_01, where little faulting occurs, across the rest of the shelf there
is significantly more faulting. There are two main scales of faults: large, oceanward
dipping faults that cut the whole Mesozoic/Cenozoic stratigraphy, and smaller scale
faults that have less of a preferred orientation (although predominantly dip oceanward),
constrained to mainly the sediments between Late-Triassic U.C. and Top Syn-R2. The
highest degree of faulting is seen in Northern Carnavon Basin (figs. 5.8 & 5.9) however
in seismic line 120_14 (fig. 5.9), faulting seems to be localised atop antiformal structures
(see section 5.2.2.5). When mapped, these faults trend predominantly NE-SW and are
more frequent towards the edge of the basins.
70
5. Results
5.2.2.4. Nature of Top Syn-R2:
Like in line 120_01, the faults present in lines 128_05, 120_14 and 128_03 all terminate
against the Top Syn-R2. However, where more faulting occurs, the Base Syn-R2 is
present. The Base Syn-R2 truncates horizons below in places and is the base of a
discontinuous unit, the thickness of which is heavily controlled by faults (fig. 5.14).
Figure 5.13. Image showing the SE of line 128_03. Highlighted is the LateTriassic U.C. truncating the reflectors of the sediments below, stratal
terminations are marked by purple arrows. Also shown is a fanning of dip in
strata seen below the Top Permian horizon.
5.2.2.5. Other Interesting Features:

The antiformal structure in line 120_14 which localises faulting can be traced in 3D as a
perfect dome (termed the Tres Hombres [Repsol, 2015]) (fig. 5.15), this dome is
37km across and has 1.2s vertical elevation.
71
5. Results
Figure 5.14. Images showing the nature of the Base Syn-R2 and Top Syn-R2
horizons and the package between them. (A) Shows a thickening package
between these horizons into a large, ocean-dipping (NW) fault. It also shows the
Top Syn-R2 horizon truncating some reflectors below it, (B) Shows the same
trend with some of the smaller observed faults. The Base Syn-R2 can also be
seen truncating some of the lower reflectors in this image.
72
5. Results
Figure 5.15. Map of the Tres Hombres Dome shown in the Top Permian horixon
showing its symmetrical nature. See fig, 5.11. for location map of the Top
Permian surface.
Line 128_05 images the Wombat Plateau (fig. 5.8). This feature is made of primarily
continental crust and is bordered to the NE by the Argo Abyssal Plain and to its right by
a canyon (fig. 5.16). Into this canyon, the beds below the Early Jurassic thin and
terminate against the plateau. These are then covered by a thick post Top Syn-R2
sequence.
73
5. Results
Figure 5.16. Images showing the location, bathymetric expression and seismic
image of the canyon surrounding the Wombat Plateau. The Wombat plateau
stands proud and the canyon surrounding it is filled in with post-Top Syn-R2
sediments.
74
5. Results
5.3. Deep Structure:

5.3.1. Line 120_01 (Roebuck Basin):
Assuming the synformal structures discussed in section 5.2. are compactional in origin,
it can also be assumed that the axis of said synforms will co-incide with the point of
deepest sedimentation below. The highs separating these synforms thus correspond to
basement highs (fig. 5.17).
Figure 5.17. Part of line 120_01 showing the positions of basement highs based
on the nature of synformal structures.
On the NW side of the structural high separating the two synforms in line 120_01,
there is a strong reflector dipping to the NW. Above this reflector there is a wedge of
faint reflectors that appear to show a fanning of dip (figs. 5.13 & 18). To the SE of the
same structural high, reflectors show a similar indication of a fanning dip but to a lesser
depth.
5.3.2. Lateral Variability in Deep Structure:

In the Northern Carnavon Basin (line 128_05), seismic imaging is good down to 1213s and very little basement structure is observed, instead there is a broad, flat platform
of sediment <13s thick (fig. 5.8).
In the Browse Basin (line 128_03), deep basin imaging is significantly worse than
128_05, however a similar wedge like feature to that seen in 120_01 is also seen in the
SE of the section.
75
5. Results
Figure 5.18. Part of line 120_01 showing a sediment package exhibiting a fanning
of dip to the NW of the large basement high in the section.
76
5. Results
5.4. Nature of the Continent Ocean Boundary (COB):

The COB is shown by the gravity, magnetic and bathymetry maps (section 5.1), however
the seismic data show that the nature of the COB is different in different areas. On line
120_01 there is a definitive boundary between the edge of the basin and the Argo
Abyssal Plain (fig. 5.19). However, lines 128_05 and 128_03 show a much less clear-cut
(fig. 5.20). From studying the regional lines that image the COB, the boundary has been
divided into areas where the contact is sharp and where it is transitional (fig. 5.21).
Figure 5.19. Image of the COB

seen in line 120_01. The
transition is sharp and
evidenced by a cliff at the shelf
edge.
77
5. Results
Figure 5.20. Image showing the COB in line 128_05, NW of the Wombat Plateau.
The COB is much less obvious here, it is gradational over 90km.
Figure 5.21. Map of the COB surrounding the Argo Abyssal Plain. Seismic lines
that show a sharp COB are marked by orange lines. Seismic lines that show a
transitional boundary are marked by yellow lines, their length represents the
length of the transitional zone.
78
5. Results
5.5. Depth Conversion:

In order to show the true geometry and depths of basin structures, seismic lines 120_01,
128_05, and 128_03 have been depth converted (figs. 5.22, 5.23, and 5.24 respectively)
using the velocity model shown in section 4.6. It is important to note that the depth
converted sections include a simplified interpreted basement (see section 6.1 for
interpretation process); a new colour scheme is also used during depth conversion (fig.
5.25).
Figure 5.25. Key to the

depth converted units.
Colour scheme has
changed to display
units used in depth
conversion. The LateTriassic U.C. and Base
Syn-R2 are not shown.
Depth conversion suggests that the continental crust/basin sediment thickness ranges
from 20km thick around the COB, to 35km towards the coastal parts where the
basement is thicker. The 1:1 sections reveal the true nature of basement structures that
were overshallowed in the 1:1 time sections. The oceanic crust in most places is 10km;
near to the COB this may be thicker as transitional crust is modelled as oceanic. The
post-Top Permian sediments appear relatively unchanged.
79
5. Results
Line 120_01
B
10,000m
40,000m
40,000m
10,000m
Figure 5.22. Depth converted line 120_01 showing (A) location map of the seismic line; (B) 2x vertical exaggerated section; (C) 1:1 section showing
the true geometries of the basement structures and the sediments above.
80
5. Results
Line 128_05
B
10,000m
40,000m
40,000m
10,000m
81
5. Results
Line 128_03
10,000m
40,000m
10,000m
40,000m
82
5. Results
5.6. Backstripping:
Backstripping has been carried out post-interpretation of the Mesozoic/Cenozoic basin
history (see section 6.2.) and assumes a rift phase ending (with breakup) at the Top
Syn-R2 horizon. Post-rift sedimentation has been removed to give a variable factor for
seismic lines 120_01, 128_05 and 128_03 (figs. 5.26, 5.27, and 5.28 respectively) (see
section 5.5. for location maps). Calculated maximum factors are 1.25 for lines 120_01
and 128_05, and 1.3 for line 128_03 indicating relatively uniform post-rift subsidence
across the shelf.
Although there are numerous faults within the sections, many of them are too small to
measure offset therefore any factor estimates derived using these faults would likely
be underestimations. A study of the closely spaced shallow seismic surveys available
(app. 1) would give a more realistic estimate. All sections are 5x vertically exaggerated.
SE
NW
Flat Datum
Figure 5.28.
Backstripped section
showing line 128_03
restored to sea level.
The variable factor
used to backstrip is
presented below, with a
maximum factor of
1.3 ocurring above
faults so these are
probably due to
compaction, the
average factor is
actually 1.2.
1.2
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.3
83
Restored to sea
level using a
beta factor of
1.1
Restored to
sea level using
a beta factor
of 1.15
NW
Restored to sea level using a beta

factor of 1.25
Restored to sea
level using a beta
factor of 1.2
Figure 5.26. Backstripped section showing line 120_01 restored to sea level. The variable
factor used to backstrip is presented below, with a maximum factor of 1.25 ocurring near
the edge of the shelf as would be expected.
Restored to sea level using a beta

factor of 1.05
Flat Datum
SE
5. Results
84
1.15
1.1
SE
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.15
1.15 1.15
1.05
1.2
Figure 5.27. Backstripped section showing line 120_01 restored to sea level. The variable
factor used to backstrip is presented below, with a maximum factor of 1.25 ocurring near
the edge of the Wombat Plateau as would be expected. The canyon between the Shelf and
the Wombat the Wombat Plateau has not been restored as it was not likely formed due to
thermal post-rift subsidence (see section 6).
1.15
1.2
Flat Datum
1.25
NW
5. Results
85
6. Analysis
86
6. Analysis
6.1. Interpreteation of Deep Structure & Early Basin History:

6.1.1. Line 120_01 (Roebuck Basin):
From the geometries of the synforms in the Mesozoic/Cenosoic sediments and the
inferred positions of basement highs (figs 5.6 & 5.17), it is clear that the deep sediments
in the basement are heavily structurally controlled. Due to its inability to explain
present day geometries and a lack of recognition in published literature, a
compressional structural control is ruled out. It is therefore suggested that a pre-Top
Permian extension event has caused the structures seen today. Two possible scenarios
can explain the present day geometries seen in the deep basin (fig. 6.1).
35km
>50km
Figure 6.1. Schematic diagrams showing the evolution of seismic line 120_01 to
the Top Permian horizon showing: (A) explanation of margin evolution using a
hyperextended model; (B) explanation of margin evolution using a rifted block
architecture. A.v. and B.iii. show the two interpretations on the seismic section.
The main difference between the models is the assumed original crustal
thickness. The Permian sediments are shown in pink, the upper crust in yellow,
the lower crust in brown and the lithosphere in green; serpentinized mantle is
light green.
87
6. Analysis
6.1.1.1. Scenario 1 (hyperextension):
The rule of thumb which states that the Moho, in an isostatically equilibrated system,
should occur between 9-12s [Warner, 1987] assumes a normal original continental
crustal thickness of 30-40km. Scenario 1 builds upon this assumption and invokes large,
rotated fault blocks (faults dipping SE) that are shown detaching onto the Moho. As
these fault blocks formed and rotated, sediments have concurrently infilled the basin
causing the dip fan seen in fig. 5.18. This model is characteristic of a hyperextended
margin where crustal-scale faults penetrate to the Moho because of coupling between
the upper and lower crust due to thinning and cooling (fig. 1.8). The faults then allow
the hydration and serpentenisation of the uppermost mantle, reducing its frictional
strength and allowing it to act as a decollement. Towards the edge of the shelf, sediment
directly overlies possible exhumed mantle. The exhumed mantle formed due to the
continued stretching and final separation of the crustal blocks (fig. 6.1.a).
Figure 6.2. Schematic diagrams showing the pitfalls in the classification of

necked and hyperextended zones (boundary shown by the dotted line). It
shows that with detached fault blocks (C) and attached fault blocks (B), the
boundary between the necked zone is definitive across the margin. However if a
fault block is partially detached, the boundary will be at the edge of the
continent at section A-A however at section B-B, the boundary is oceanward of
the fault block. This means that classification of necked and hyperextended
zones in 3D is tenuous. Crust is coloured yellow, serpentinized mantle is light
green and lithosphere is dark green.
88
6. Analysis
Due to poor seismic imaging at depth, there is a large amount of uncertainty
surrounding the true geometry of the deep structure. The primary uncertainty lies in
whether the two inferred fault blocks are separated as this dictates how the sections is
divided into hyperextended domains (fig. 1.10). It is for this reason that the distinction
between hyperextended and necked domains (fig. 1.10) is often not clear cut (fig. 6.2).
It is also uncertain as to what the sediments within the deep basin are overlying and the
thickness of the serpentinite body as this can have large implications when depth
converting.
6.1.1.2. Scenario 2 (rifted):
Scenario 2 requires a larger crustal thickness than that assumed by Warner [1987], ergo
the Moho need not be confined to 9-12s. The model suggests steeper faults which
detach into the lower crust (fig. 6.1.b). Although controlled by steeper faults, the
basement blocks must have been tilted significantly to concur with the geometries seen
in fig. 5.18.
6.1.1.3. Comparison Between Scenario 1 & 2:
The primary factor determining the favoured scenario is crustal thickness. Goncharov
[2004] presents a crustal thickness for the Kimberly and Pilbara Blocks of 35-45km
which lies within the range of normal crustal thickness required by Warners [1987]
Moho rule. For this reason, the Moho is expected to be found at 10-12s which suggests
that scenario 1 is more geologically feasible as it is unrealistic that the thickness of
rifted crust be thicker than the cratons it borders. This is backed up by the depth
conversion of the section, which proves that the crustal thickness decreases from
35km beneath thick basement to 20km nearing the COB (fig. 5.22). The deep
structure of the basin therefore resembles a hyperextended rift architecture (fig. 6.3)
suggesting an early (pre-Top Permian) extensional phase in the basin.
89
6. Analysis
Figure 6.3. Fully interpreted section of line 120_01 including basement structure. (A) key
to the section, (B) Location map for the section, (C) Interpreted section. 5x vertical
exaggeration.
90
6. Analysis
6.1.2. Lateral Variability in Deep Structure:

Interpretations of lines 128_05, 120_14 and 128_03 support the theory of an early
hyperextended rift architecture, forming the deep basins structure. Depth conversion of
lines 128_05 and 128_03 show crustal thicknesses in the expected range of 20-30km
(figs. 5.23 & 5.24). Moreover, high quality imaging on line 128_05 relatively flat-lying
sediments to depths of 10s interpreted to be overlying exhumed mantle (fig. 6.4).
The distribution of tilted fault blocks can be mapped using the trends of synforms seen
in the Top Permian horizon and the four key seismic lines (figs. 6.5). The boundary
between the basement fault blocks (gravity and magnetic highs) and the exhumed
mantle can also be observed in the gravity and magnetic data (figs. 5.3 & 5.4). From this
mapping and analysis of lines 120_01, 128_05, 120_14, and 128_03 (figs 6.3, 6.4, 6.6 &
6.7 respectively), it is shown that the Roebuck and Browse basins both contain two
relatively large fault blocks whereas the Northern Carnavon Basin is underlain by a
large expanse of exhumed mantle (fig. 6.8).
Roebuck Basin
Northern Carnavon Basin
Figure 6.5. Interpretive structure contour map of the Roebuck and north part of
the Northern Carnavon basins. Dark colours indicate structural lows. Faults and
crust are coloured and contoured separately.
91
6. Analysis
All of the deep faults are interpreted to dip south east. This, combined with the uneven
lateral continuity of fault blocks, suggests that the rift architecture was either highly
asymmetric or heavily influenced by crustal inheritance; possibly a combination of the
two (see section 1.2.5 for description of inheritance). In order to test this, a detailed
study of the original basement architecture would be necessary, however initial
observations of Australiaa basement terrains reveal no nearby structural trend
orientated NE-SW (fig. 6.9) . This suggests that structural inheritance may not be a
major control on the NW shelf rift architecture.
Figure 6.8. 3D image of the study area showing the geometry and lateral extents
of fault blocks along the basin (note the faults are dipping to the NE). The NE-SW
orientated lines along the continental boundary show the position of the four
key sections used in structural contouring 6.4.
Figure 6.9. Map showing

the basement terrains of
Australia, used to identify
structural trends near the
NW shelf [OZ Seebase,
2005].
92
6. Analysis
exaggeration.
93
6. Analysis
exaggeration.
94
6. Analysis
exaggeration.
95
6. Analysis
6.2. Srtucture of the Mesozoic & Cenozoic Basin Fill:

The Mesozoic and Cenozoic sediments across the NW shelf can be divided into three
broad megasequences split by unconformities: Top Permian Late-Triassic U.C. (MS1),
Late-Triassic U.C. Top Syn-R2 (MS2), and Top Syn-R2 Seabed (MS3) (fig. 6.10).
Figure 6.10. Key to the megasequences described in this section and the horizons
they encompass.
6.2.1. Megasequence 1 (MS1):

MS1 lies directly atop the early rifted sediments (see section 6.2). The Late-Triassic U.C.
is a major unconformity around structural highs (fig. 5.6), however across much of the
basin the horizons below are not truncated. In areas not truncated by the unconformity,
the strata form compactional synclines characterised by a lack of visible onlaps. The
Late-Triassic U.C. also, in places, represents a boundary between relatively well imaged
seismic data (above) and relatively poorly imaged data (below). This is most likely
because of image degradation due to the unconformity. The fact that erosional
truncations are largely limited to the vicinity of structural highs (fig. 5.6) indicates that
some uplift and possibly inversion along deeper structures suggesting the presence of a
compressional event at the time of the unconformity.
96
6. Analysis

The majority of MS2 contains continuous reflectors and broadly maintains thickness
across most of the NW shelf. However between structural highs, affected by the LateTriassic U.C., the strata exhibit onlaps (fig. 5.6). These characteristics suggest that this
stage of basin fill was formed by sedimentation accommodated by passive subsidence.
The relatively continuous strata of the Late-Triassic U.C. Base Syn-R2 are heavily
faulted in places (figs. 6.3, 6.4, 6.6 & 6.7). These faults terminate against the Top Syn-R2
and show growth strata into them (fig. 5.15). The Base Syn-R2 is a minor unconformity
in places (usually truncating the sides of horst structures) and happens to be the base of
the unit containing said growth strata. The Base Syn-R2 Top Syn-R2 interval suggests
that two extensional phases have been experienced by the basin: R1 (Top Basement
Top Permian) and R2 (Base Syn-R2 Top Syn-R2). This extensional event could be
responsible for continental breakup and the formation of the Argo and Gascoyne
abyssal plains (see section 6.2.4).

MS3 marks a change to unstructured, continuous deposition across most of the shelf.
The Base Tertiary horizon lies at the base of a sequence of prograding clinoforms
interpreted as an inner shelf delta, the lateral extents of this delta can be seen in the
shelfs bathymetric expression: its shelf-edge-break marks the boundary between the
shelf and the platform in fig. 5.2. The nature of the MS3 deposits and their position
above MS2 are indicative of post-rift subsidence deposits.
6.2.4. Nature of R2:

The magnetic anomalies in the abyssal plains (fig. 5.4) can indicate the direction of
seafloor spreading at creation. Interpretation of these magnetic anomalies indicates a
seafloor spreading direction NW-SE for the Argo Abyssal Plain and a more WNW-ESE
direction for the Gascoyne and Cuvier abyssal plains. The cross-cutting nature of the
magnetic anomalies suggests the initial spreading direction was NW-SE (fig. 6.11).
The backstripping of MS3 (figs. 5.26, 5.27 & 5.28) has revealed a maximum factor of
1.25-1.3 for sections 120_01, 128_05 and 128_03 (all show increasing factors toward
the abyssal plain) suggesting that lithospheric stretching was relatively uniform
laterally across the study area.
97
6. Analysis
Figure 6.11. Schematic diagrams showing the interpretation of spreading

direction from magnetic anomalies. (A) Magnetic map of the shelf, (B) line
drawing produced of magnetic anomalies from the map, (C) Evolution of the
spreading ridge from NW rifting to WNW-ESE rifting.
There are two scales of faults that control Syn-R2 deposition: large scale, oceanward
dipping faults and minor faults that dip both ocean and coastward (fig. 5.14). All of these
faults trend NE-SW with an 60 swing in strike (fig. 6.12). Due to the predominant
trend of the large faults dipping oceanward (NW), it is likely that the large faults cutting
Mesozoic/Cenozoic strata in line 128_03 are reactivated basement faults. There are
three causes for faulting explaining the varying strike of the faults:
(1) Faulting due to NW-SE and subsequently WNW-ESE rifting causing the
majority of the NE-SW and NNE-SSW trending faults (fig. 6.12).
(2) The NE-SW spreading axis shown by the magnetic anomalies (fig. 6.11) are
oblique to the edge of the Northern Carnavon Basin. This has caused normal
faults with an ENE-WSW trend sue to shearing (6.13).
98
6. Analysis
(3)
Formation of the Wombat Plateau and Tres Hombres Dome (see section 6.4)
have also caused a high degree of faulting. As the four key sections presented in
this study have been picked to show these interesting features, lines 128_05 and
120_14 show an unrepresentatively high degree of faulting (figs. 6.4 & 6.6).
Figure 6.12. Stereonet showing the trends of faulting on the NW shelf and the
likely events that caused them.
Due to the effects of shearing and other features, seismic lines 120_01 and 128_03 are
most representative of the degree of brittle crustal deformation. As mentioned in
section 5.9., due to the scale of observation it is not possible to determine a crustal
factor as many of the faults in these sections are too small to measure offset. However,
the fact that the faulting is so minor in these sections, the factor is expected to be
relatively insignificant when compared with the factors determined for lithospheric
stretching (section 5.9).
R2 is therefore interpreted to be a phase of rifting that is highly depth dependent in
nature, this is also supported by the transitional crust seen at places along the COB as
this is a common feature of depth dependent stretched margins (fig. 1.11).
99
6. Analysis
Figure 6.13. Diagram of the COB surrounding the Argo Abyssal Plain with a
magnified section containing a strain ellipse explaining the formation of ENEWSW striking normal faults at the margin.
100
6. Analysis
6.3. Nature of the COB:

The COB surrounding the Argo Abyssal Plain can roughly be traced using magnetic and
gravity anomaly maps, and bathymetry maps (figs. 5.2, 5.3 & 5.4). Observations of the
bathymetry show a significant amount of small-scale variability along the COB (fig. 6.14),
thus to accurately study the nature of the COB is beyond the scope of this study.
Figure 6.14. Bathymetry map of the COB surrounding the Argo Abyssal Plain
showing the apparently small scale structural variability associated with the
COB.
Interpretation of spreading direction from magnetic anomalies (section 6.2.4)

suggests a spreading direction of NW-SE. As the COB is not completely perpendicular
to the spreading direction, it is likely that at the time of rifting some shearing of the COB
was occurring. This shearing has manifested at the COB by forming an oblique
transform margin (fig. 6.15).
101
6. Analysis
Seismic lines that exhibit a sharp COB (fig. 5.21) are thought to be formed from
transform parts of the margin (fig. 6.16) and ones that show transitional crust are
formed from non-sheared parts of the margin (fig. 6.15).
Figure 6.15. Schematic diagrams showing the development of the COB at oblique
transform margins. This figure explains the existence of transitional crust at
some parts of the margin (line 128_03) and the sharp COB seen in others (line
120_01). It suggests that the COB type is a function of the angle and position that
the seismic is shot relative to the margin.
102
6. Analysis
Figure 6.16. Diagram explaining the evolution of a solely transform margin. This
is the process affecting the sheared part of the NW shelf margin [Bird, 2001].
103
6. Analysis
6.4. Other Interesting Features:

6.4.1. Formation of the Wombat Plateau:
The Wombat Plateau (fig. 5.2) is interpreted as a block of continental crust (based on
gravity, magnetic and seismic data) that is separated from the Northern Carnavon Basin
by a canyon that is filled with post-Top Syn-R2 sediments. The Wombat Plateau is
consequently interpreted as a continental raft that was initially separated from the shelf
during R1. The Northern Carnavon Basin was subsequently filled causing strata to
terminate against the side of the Wombat Plateau. R2 then re-mobilised this continental
raft causing a rollover of the sediments in the Northern Carnavon Basin into the space
created (fig. 6.17). Outer-arc extension associated with this rollover of sediment is
thought to have caused the heavy faulted parts of section 128_05 (figs. 6.4 & 6.17).
6.4.2. Formation of the Tres Hombres Dome:

Although most of the features seen in the NW shelf can be explained, the Tres Hombres
Dome (see section 5.2.2.5) is anomalous. It appears as a perfect dome (fig. 5.15) that
localises faulting in MS2 but does not affect MS3, suggesting it was possibly related to
R2. The Top Permian is deformed by the structure indicating a deep structure has
formed it, and its size (35km across) means it is very unlikely to be a sedimentary
diapir. Two possible hypotheses have been presented (fig. 6.18) explaining its formation:
a lithospheric thermal anomaly (fig. 6.18a), and serpentine diapirism related with
differential loading due to R2 faulting (fig. 6.18b). Its size (35km across) is small
compared to that expected from a hot spot so the serpentine diapir model is preferred.
However, to determine the true nature of this structure would require a more detailed
study.
104
6. Analysis
NW
SE
Figure 6.17. Schematic sections showing the evolution of the Wombat Plateau.
Line shown is an extension of seismic line 128_05. For sediments colour scheme
see fig. 6.4.
105
6. Analysis
Figure 6.18. Schematic sections of line 120_14 showing the possible evolutions
of the Tres Hombres Dome. (A) the lithospheric thermal anomaly model
involves the upwelling of hot asthenosphere as R2 was initiated. Uplift due to
this upwelling could be a cause of the faulting or this could be due to the thermal
and isostatic re-equilibration of the lithosphere causing subsidence. (B) As the
margins sediments are interpreted to be lying atop serpentinized mantle, this
could have become mobile during R2 with faulting in the sediments above
causing differential loading. In response to this differential loading the
serpentine could have formed a dome in a similar way to that of a salt dome. The
light green area represents serpentinized mantle, the dark green indicates
mantle; for sediments and basement colour scheme see fig. 6.6.
106
7. Discussion
107
7. Discussion
7.1. Geological Evolution of the NW Australian Shelf: a comparison with

published literature:
Evolutionary models and tectonic maps, derived from the results of this study and from
published works, are presented in table 7.1 for the Northern Carnavon, Roebuck and
Browse basins. These are compared with tectonic maps shown in previous studies
(table 7.1). The NW shelf has been interpreted as a polyphase rifted passive margin,
having undergone two tectonically independent rifting events (R1 in the Permian, and
R2 in the Jurassic Cretaceous). These rifting events have been caused by the
separation of the Cimmerian Microcontinent, the West Burma Block, and the Indian
Plate from Gondwana (table 7.1 see page 113).
7.1.1. Comparison of R1:

Most studies [Driscoll & Karner, 1998; Karner & Driscoll, 1999; Heine, 2002; Longley et
al, 2002; Heine & Muller, 2005; Marshall & Lang, 2013] focus on the Jurassic
Cretaceous separation of the West Burma Block and Indian Plate from Gondwana
during
R2.
There
is
tendency
to
leave
the
pre-Triassic
strata
as
basement/uninterpreted basin [Geoscience Australia, 2015a & b]. Belgarde et al [2015]

have recognised that in order to accommodate <25km of uninterpreted basin
sediments in the Northern Carnavon Basin [this study], significant crustal thinning must
have occurred. This crustal thinning is thought to be accommodated by the
hyperextension of the continental crust.
The findings of this study strongly support those of Belgarde et al [2015], suggesting a
broad zone of exhumed mantle underlying much of the Northern Carnavon Basin (figs.
7.1 & 7.2) and the Browse Basin (fig. 7.2). However within the Roebuck Basin, the
findings of this study suggest a different architecture (fig. 7.2). Figures 7.1 and 7.2
divide the NW shelf into hyperextended, necked and stretched zones based on Sutra
et als [2012] classification (fig. 1.10).
7.1.2. Comparison of R2:

Rifting and separation of the West Burma Block has lead to significant amounts of postrift subsidence and sedimentation, however faulting in the area remains relatively
minor [Driscoll & Karner, 1998; this study]; making R2 on the NW shelf a commonly
cited example of DDS [Davis & Kusznir, 2004; Kusznir et al, 2005]. Karner & Driscoll
108
7. Discussion
[1999] present a maximum lithospheric factor for post-R2 subsidence of 2.65 with a
negligible amount of upper crustal, fault accommodated extension; this study presents a
maximum lithospheric factor of 1.3 with negligible upper crustal extension. Although
the results from both prove that R2 stretching is highly depth dependent, there is still a
large discrepancy between the two studies. Reasons for this discrepancy include: a
different method of calculating factors, the sections have been backstripped to
different horizons, or the backstripping has been carried out in different parts of the
section where a thicker post-R2 package is seen.
Figure 7.1. Cross sections across the Northern Carnavon Basin taken from the
locations shown in fig. 7.2. (A-A on map A; B-B on map B). The figure shows: (A)
a cross section created using gravity foreward modelling from Belgarde et al
[2015]; (B) a schematic cross section derived from seismic interpretation
through the same area from this study (for colour scheme see fig. 6.4). The
sections show a very similar trend and the proposed hyperextended, necked and
stretched zones are in similar positions.
109
7. Discussion
Figure 7.2. Maps of the NW shelf dividing the shelf and its constituent basins into
hyperextended, necked and stretched zones. (A) is taken from Belgarde et al
[2015]; (B) has been created from this study, the interpretation has been carried
as far as confidence allows and the same colour scheme has been used.
110
7. Discussion
Figure 7.3. Potential models for the onset of oceanic spreading during R2 (lateral
continuity of interpretation taken as far as confidence allows). (A) shows
breakup occurring in the centre of a broad hyperextended zone; (B) shows
breakup occurring along the boundary between a broad hyperextended zone and
the West Burma Block (shown here as attached to the Lhasa Block).
7.1.3. Uncertainties in the Model:

The obvious uncertainty regarding the geometry of R1 comes from the issue of image
quality. However, the newly-proposed model showing hyperextended crust underlying
the Permian sediments also adds massive uncertainty as to the nature of continental
breakup. It was previously thought that the West Burma Block rifted off the Australian
Plate [Heine, 2002; Heine & Muller, 2005; Metcalfe, 2013] however the presence of a
broad zone of hyperextension raises the question: where within this zone did breakup
occur? Logically, breakup either occurred along the edge of a continental block or within
the zone of hyperextension (fig. 7.3). This debate is by no means limited to this margin,
it also feeds into the wider debate of how significant crustal structure is in controlling
111
7. Discussion
margin breakup [Manatschal et al, 2015]. A definitive answer to this question is not
available due to the political situation in Myanmar meaning little data is available
regarding the composition of the West Burma Block [Heine, 2002]. However, due to the
sinuous nature of the COB and tectonic models in the published literature, scenario 1 is
preferred.
112
7. Discussion
3D Section Evolution
Tectonic Map (this study) Explanation.
Tectonic Map (Published

Literature)
Through the Carboniferous,

the Australian Plate was part
of Gondwana [Metcalfe, 2013].
These rocks form the
basement in this study.
Metcalfe, 2013
L = Lhasa Block
During the Permian, rifting

and separation of the
Cimmerian Microcontinent
from Gondwana causes a failed
rift (R1) between the West
Burma/Lhasa Block. This
model states that
hyperextension has occurred
within the failed rift system.
Tectonic maps in the literature
fail to document this Permian
rifting event, thus the West
Burma / Lhasa Block are
shown attached to Gondwana.
Lithospheric Mantle
Asthenosphere
- Exhumed/Serpentinized
Mantle
- Permian Sediments
Metcalfe, 2013
SWB = Southwest Borneo
From the Top Permian to the

Late Triassic the margin has
undergone post R1 passive
subsidence and sedimentation.
N/A
- Top Permian Intra-Triassic
- Intra-Triassic Top Triassic U.C.
113
7. Discussion
Metcalfe, 2013
A Late Triassic compressive

event related to the
subduction of the Meso-Tethys
then caused local uplift and
possible inversion primarily
near structural highs. This
compressive event is termed
the Fitzroy Movement and is
the cause of the Late Triassic
U.C. [Stagg et al, 2004;
Chongzhi et al, 2013; Metcalfe,
2013].
EJ-WS=East JavaWest Sulawesi
- Top Triassic U.C. Early

Jurassic
- Early Jurassic Base

Syn-R2 (Late Jurassic)
Latest Jurassic.
Another period of subsidence

then occurred post
compression leading to more
passive subsidence across the
area. This disagrees with
Loingley et al [2002] who
states that during the Early
and Middle Jurassic the Lhasa
Block (1 in the right hand
figure) rifted off the NW shelf
and caused extensional
structures. As no evidence of
Early-Middle Jurassic
structures are observed in this
study, the Lhasa Block is
shown attached to the West
Burma Block (2 in right hand
figure).
Longley et al, 2002

1 = Lhasa Block
2 = West Burma Block
In the Late Jurassic

(Oxfordian-Tithonian) the
West Burma Block rifted and
separated from the NW shelf
in a NW-SE spreading
orientation. This created the
Argo Abyssal Plain and its
present day COB.
Heine & Muller, 2005

- Transitional Crust
- Oceanic Crust
WB = West Burma Block
114
7. Discussion
In the Early Cretaceous, India

began to separate from the
west of Australia in a WNWESE spreading orientation.
This caused faults trending
NNE-SSW across the Northern
Carnavon Basin.
Heine & Muller, 2005
From the Middle Cretaceous to

the present day, passive
subsidence of the margin
related to relaxation of the
lithosphere after R2 and
breakup.
- Early Cretaceous
Base Tertiary
N/A
- Base Tertiary - Present
Table 7.1. Summary table showing the geodynamic and tectonic evolution of the NW
Australian shelf. Column one contains schematic evolutionary sections through the red lines
indicated on the figures in column 2 (the southwest section line is the front section)
showing the 3D evolution of the shelf. These sections are roughly extensions of seismic
lines: 128_05, 120_01 and 128_03. Column two contains tectonic maps created using a
combination of the published literature and the results found in this study, the striped
green area represents study area. Column three provides a brief explanation of each
evolutionary stage and a comparison between the tectonic maps presented in columns 2
and 4. Column 4 shows tectonic maps shown in the literature for each stage (if possible).
[Compiled from: Heine, 2002; Longley et al, 2002; Stagg et al, 2004; Heine & Muller, 2005;
Chongzhi et al, 2013; Metcalfe, 2013].
115
7. Discussion
7.2. Comparing the NW Shelf with Analogue Margins:

7.2.1. The Norwegian Margin:
The Norwegian Rifted Margin is a polyphase rifted margin has undergone Late Jurassic
Early Cretaceous hyperextension forming a series of large tilted fault blocks
[Osmundsen, 2008; Peron-Pinvidic, 2013]. The basin was then filled by passive
subsidence until in the latest Cretaceous Early Tertiary when a second phase of rifting
caused continental breakup; the second rifting event is highly depth dependent [Kusznir
et al, 2005].
7.2.2. The Namibian Margin:

The Namibian Margin is another polyphase rifted margin. The first phase of rifting
occurred in the Triassic and is classified as non-volcanic; the second phase occurred in
the Jurassic and was of volcanic nature [Gladczenko et al, 1998].
7.2.3. Comparison:
Both of the aforementioned margins share similarities with the NW Australian shelf. All
three margins show an early extension phase, an 100Ma period of relative tectonic
quiescence, followed by another stretching event (fig. 7.4). Norway exhibits the same
hyperextension - passive subsidence - DDS and continental breakup evolution as the
NW shelf and is therefore its most analogous margin [Osmundsen, 2008; Peron-Pinvidic,
2013]. However, the tectonic events that caused the two rifting events are not thought
to be completely isolated and thus the margins are not perfect analogues [PeronPinvidic, 2013]. The Namibian margin shows extensive plume-related volcanism related
to the second rift event and is therefore commonly termed a volcanic margin (or active
margin). However, the earlier extensional event is classified non-volcanic (or passive);
these tectonic events are thought to be independent. Thus, the Namibia and NW
Australian margins are partially analogous.
Comparisons with other hyperextended margins can also help to explain some of the
anomalous features seen on the NW shelf. A similar feature to the Wombat Plateau (see
fig. 6.17 for evolution) can be seen on the Brazilian margin: the Sao Paulo Plateau
[Scotchman et al, 2010]. Although this is partially attributed to a transform zone, it
shows similar characteristics to the Wombat Plateau and could be used to better
determine the formation of the Wombat Plateau [Scotchman et al, 2010].
116
7. Discussion
Serpentine diapirism is well documented in subduction zones [Kamimura et al, 2002]
and in the Porcupine Basin [Reston et al, 2004]. Based on these examples, it is plausible
that the Tres Hombres has formed from deep serpentine diapirism.
Figure 7.4. Three very simplified sections through: the NW Australian shelf, the
Norwegian Margin, and the Namibian Margin. The figure is used to identify
trends shown within each margin where each margin undergoes significant
passive rifting, followed by the accumulation of 100Ma of passive margin or
sag sedimentation, followed then by a highly depth dependent rifting event that
leads to continental breakup. Taken from: this study, Osmundsen et al [2008]
and Gladcsenko et al, [1998].
117
7. Discussion
7.3. Some Remarks Regarding the Evolution of Polyphase Rifted

Margins:
Comparisons of the Norwegian and NW Australian margin have revealed that the
margins share a remarkably similar extension history. Both margins have undergone a
period of hyperextension, a period of 100Ma of passive subsidence, followed by a
period of depth dependent stretching (DDS) leading to continental breakup
[Osmundsen, 2008; Peron-Pinvidic, 2013; this study]. As the terms hyperextension
and DDS are the two end-members of a continual system (see fig. 1.11), there must be a
reason for the differences in deformation style between the two phases of extension. As
explained in section 1.2.5, higher heat flow (and therefore faster rifting) will lead to
more stretching in the lithospheric mantle than in the crust.
The second extensional phase (that leads to continental breakup and shows DDS) at
both margins is preceded by a cooler (and possibly slower) first phase of rifting that has
possibly lead to the hydration and serpentinization of the uppermost mantle. It is
thought that the two phases of rifting in the Norwegian margin are not completely
isolated [Peron-Pinvidic, 2013] and neither margin shows perfectly symmetric rifting
[Peron-Pinvidic, 2013; this study (section 6.1.2)]. However, for the purpose of simplicity
in this model the two rift phases at each margin will be treated as symmetrical and
isostatically unrelated.
A simple way a pre-existing rift architecture can influence a second rift phase is the
formation of a lithospheric heterogeneity in rift phase one which is then re-exploited
during the second phase. This would lead to rapid localisation of lithospheric extension,
leading to fast lithospheric necking and heavily depth dependent stretching (fig. 7.5
see page 120).
The aforementioned explanation allows for higher heat flow in the second rifting
phase. However, depth dependent stretching requires a decoupling between the upper
crust and lithospheric mantle (maintained by the upwelling of hit asthenosphere) (figs.
1.11 & 1.12); if hyperextension has occurred the lower crust will have been removed.
The second way pre-existing hyperextension can affect the nature of a second rift is
the formation of serpentinized mantle. Serpentinites found at hyperextended rifted
margins are of lizardite composition [Escartn et al, 1997 (discovered at the Iberian
118
7. Discussion
margin)], which has a coefficient of friction of 0.3-0.45 [Escartn et al, 1997] (upper
continental crust plots from 0.65-1 [Brgmann & Dresen, 2008]. Although this is not as
weak as ductile lower continental crust [Brgmann & Dresen, 2008], it provides a
decoupling horizon that does not depend on temperature. In contrast to lower crustal
decoupling horizons (that require high heat flow to remain viscous), lizardite is most
stable at low temperatures [Caruso & Chernosky, 1979; Prez-Gussiny & Reston, 2001].
If lizardite is present, this relieves the dependency on high heat flow in order to have an
efficient detachment and thus, relieves the temperature and speed dependency of DDS
(fig. 7.5).
Thick accumulations of sediment over time can pose uncertainty for this theory and
close to 30km of sediments are found in the Roebuck Basin on the NW Australian shelf
[this study]. Dehydration of lizardite occurs at 550-600C and, following a typical
continental geotherm of 25C/km, at the base of the sedimentary column the
temperature is expected to be around 750C meaning the lizardite would have
undergone retrograde metamorphism back to its olivine phase (eq. 7.1) [Caruso &
Chernosky, 1979]. However following the same typical geotherm, the brittle-ductile
transition is expected to occur at 15-20km depth [Burov & Watts, 2006] meaning that
the base of the same presented sedimentary column would be part of the ductile lower
crust. In this situation, the free water expelled by the serpentine during retrograde
metamorphism (eq. 7.1) [Caruso & Chernosky, 1979] would hydrate the lower crust
possibly forming partial melt. This could then allow for a possible reduction in the lower
crustal friction coefficient, leading to the lower crust becoming a more efficient
detachment and having a higher solidification temperature. A higher solidification
temperature would act to further reduce the temperature dependency of the decoupling
horizon.
10Mg55Al10Si35O10(OH)8 (Lizardite) = 2Mg3Si4O10(OH)2 (Talc) +

12Mg2SiO4 (forsterite) + 5Mg5Al2Si3O10(OH)8 (clinochlore) + 18H2O (fluid)
Equation 7.1. Metamorphic reaction equation showing the dehydration of
lizardite to from talc, forsterite, clinochlore and fluid.
119
7. Discussion
If one were to use the combined effects of lithospheric heterogeneity and serpentine
acting as a temperature-independent slip surface as a predictive tool. In a system that
has undergone a phase of hyperextension and mantle exhumation, any second phase
that were to occur would likely be relatively depth dependent.
The recognition of this trend has wider reaching implications for the debate
surrounding active (volcanic) and passive (non-volcanic) rifting. Active rifting is
commonly attributed to active mantle upwelling and/or plume related volcanism
[Turcotte & Emerman, 1983], however the recognition of a previous extensional rift
phase could provide a means for the generation of an active margin without
dependence on lithospheric thermal anomalies.
120
Figure 7.5. Schematic sections showing the idealised evolution of a symmetrical polyphase
rifted margin that has undergone a period of hyperextension, a period of complete
lithospheric re-equilibration, and another period of stretching. Highlighted in the figure are
the expected effects of the hyperextended rift architecture on the second phase of rifting as
discussed in the text.
7. Discussion
121
7. Discussion
7.4. Suggestions for Further Work:
Belgarde et al [2015] present a gravity forward modelled a section through the

Northern Carnavon Basin. In order to determine any lateral variability in the deep
structure it is advised that some forward modelling be carried out along sections in
the Roebuck and Browse Basins.
To determine the point of oceanic spreading initiation relative to the hyperextended

zone, work needs to be done on the West Burma Block.
In order to correctly determine the depth dependency of R2 stretching, restorations

need to be done across the shelf to determine the real brittle crustal beta factor and
how it varies across the area to also see how it varies laterally.
In order to determine the true nature of the COB a detailed bathymetric or sidescan
survey should be carried out alongside a more detailed seismic mapping to
determine where shearing has occurred and where transitional crust is present.
As the Tres Hombres Dome is so poorly understood, a detailed study dedicated to

determining the origin of this structure using gravity forward modelling and seismic
interpretation is advised.
A detailed fault interpretation across the Northern Carnavon, Roebuck and Browse
basins should be carried out, using the closely spaced 2D lines (app. 1), to show the
true orientation and abundances of faulting in the area.
122
Conclusions
123
8. Conclusions
8.1. Concluding Remarks:

The NW Australian shelf is interpreted as a polyphase rifted margin, having undergone
two distinct phases of rifting separated by a period of 100Ma of tectonic quiescence.
Up to thirty kilometres of sediment have accumulated atop Carboniferous basement and
proposed serpentinized mantle. These sediments have been divided into broad
megasequences dependent on their causative tectonic event: syn-rift-1 (R1) sediments,
post-R1 passive subsidence deposits (MS1), Jurassic passive subsidence and syn-rift-2
(R2) sedimentation following a Late Triassic compressive event (MS2), post R2 passive
subsidence (MS3).
The first phase of extension (R1) occurred in the Permian and lead to the
hyperextension of the continental crust, the exhumation and possible serpentinization of
the lithospheric mantle, and the formation of large, tilted fault blocks. Results presented
in this study have found that R1 was likely highly asymmetric and possibly influenced by
crustal inheritance. The shelf has been divided into zones of hyperextended, necked
and stretched domains based on the Sutra et al [2013] classification (fig. 1.10). This
division has been compared with that of Belgarde et al [2015] (fig. 7.2).
Estimates of whole lithospheric stretching from backstripping have provided a variable
factor with a maximum value of 1.3. This is significantly lower than Karner & Driscoll
[1999], who propose a lithospheric factor of 2.65. However, both studies document a
very minor amount of upper crustal faulting suggesting that R2 stretching was highly
depth dependant.
Comparisons with analogue margins have revealed that the NW Australian shelf shares
similarities with two polyphase, east Atlantic rifted margins: the Norwegian and
Namibian margins. The Norwegian margin is the NW shelfs strongest analogue, sharing
a very similar history. The Namibian margin has associated plume-related volcanism
and is therefore only partially analogous.
A common trend in the Norwegian and NW Australian passive margins has been
identified. Both exhibit an early extensional phase that causes hyperextension and
possible exhumation of lithospheric mantle, followed by 100Ma of passive subsidence,
followed by a highly depth dependent stretching event. This trend is attributed to the
generation of lithospheric heterogeneities and a serpentinite detachment during the first
rift phase.
124
References
1. Belgarde, C., Manatschal, G., Kusznir, N., Scarselli, S. and Ruder, M. (2015). Rift
processes in the Westralian Superbasin, North West Shelf, Australia: insights
from 2D deep reflection seismic interpretation and potential fields modelling.
In: APPEA Conference 2015. Melbourne: Australian Petroleum Production &
Exploration Association, pp.1-8.
2. Bird, D. (2001). Shear margins: Continent-ocean transform and fracture zone
boundaries. The Leading Edge, 20(2), pp.150-159.
3. Buck, W., Martinez, F., Steckler, M. and Cochran, J. (1988). Thermal
consequences of lithospheric extension: Pure and simple. Tectonics, 7(2),
pp.213-234
4. Brgmann, R. and Dresen, G. (2008). Rheology of the Lower Crust and Upper
Mantle: Evidence from Rock Mechanics, Geodesy, and Field Observations. Annu.
Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., 36(1), pp.531-567.
5. Burov, E. and Watts, A. (2006). The long-term strength of continental
lithosphere: jelly sandwich or crme brle?. GSA Today, 16(1), pp.4-10.
6. Burov, E. and Diament, M. (1995). The effective elastic thickness (Te) of
continental lithosphere: What does it really mean?. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 100(B3), pp.3905-3927.
7. Burov, E. and Poliakov, A. (2001). Erosion and rheology controls on synrift and
postrift evolution: Verifying old and new ideas using a fully coupled numerical
model. Journal of Geophysical Research, 106(B8), pp.16,461-16,481.
8. Brun, J. and Beslier, M. (1996). Mantle exhumation at passive margins. Earth and
Planetary Science Letters, 142(1), pp.161-173.
9. Brune, S., Heine, C., Prez-Gussiny, M. and Sobolev, S. (2014). Rift migration
explains continental margin asymmetry and crustal hyper-extension. Nature
Communications, 5, pp1-9.
10. Caruso, L. and Chernosky, J. (1979). The Stability of Lizardite. The Canadian
Mineralogist, 17, pp.757-769.
125
11. Chongzhi, T., Guoping, B., Junlan, L., Chao, D., Xiaoxin, L., Houwu, L. and Dapeng,
W. (2013). Mesozoic lithofacies palaeogeography and petroleum prospectivity
in North Carnarvon Basin, Australia. Journal of Palaeogeography, 2(1), pp.81-92.
12. Davis, M. and Kusznir, N.J. (2004) Depth-Dependent Lithospheric Stretching at

Rifted Continental Margins. In: Karner, G.D., ed. Proceedings of NSF Rifted
Margins Theoretical Institute, p 92-136. Columbia University Press, New York,
pp. 92-136
13. Driscoll, N. and Karner, G. (1998). Lower crustal extension across the Northern
Carnarvon
basin,
Australia:
Evidence
for
an
eastward
dipping
detachment. Journal of Geophysical Research, 103(B3), pp.4975-4991.

14. Dore, T. and Lundin, E. (2014). RESEARCH FOCUS: Hyperextended continental
margins-Knowns and unknowns. Geology, 43(1), pp.95-96.
15. Escartn, J., Hirth, G. and Evans, B. (1997). Effects of serpentinization on the
lithospheric strength and the style of normal faulting at slow-spreading
ridges. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 151(3-4), pp.181-189.
16. Geoscience Australia, (2015a). Regional Geology of the Northern Carnarvon

Basin. In: Offshore Petroleum Exploration Acreage Release, Geoscience Australia,
pp.1-34.
17. Geoscience Australia, (2015b). Regional Geology of the Roebuck Basin.
In: Offshore Petroleum Exploration Acreage Release, Geoscience Australia, pp.117.
18. Goncharov, A., 2004. Basement and crustal structure of the Bonaparte and
Browse basins, Australian northwest margin. Proceedings of the Timor Sea
Symposium, Northern Territory Geological Survey Australia, Special Publication, 1,
pp.551566
19. Gladczenko, T., Skogseid, J. and Eldhom, O. (1998). Namibia volcanic
margin. Marine Geophysical Research, 20, pp.313-341.
126
20. Google Earth 7.0. 2015. NW Australia, 2425'03.8"S 10253'36.4"E, 0m elevation.

[Accessed 9 August 2015].
21. Heine, C. (2002). The Tectonic Evolution of the Northwest Shelf OF Australia and
southern Southeast Asia. PhD Thesis.
22. Heine, C. and Mller, R. (2005). Late Jurassic rifting along the Australian North
West Shelf: margin geometry and spreading ridge configuration. Australian
Journal of Earth Sciences, 52(1), pp.27-39.
23. Houseman, G. and England, P. (1986). A dynamical model of lithosphere
extension and sedimentary basin formation. Journal of Geophysical Research,
91(B1), pp.719-729.
24. Huismans, R. and Beaumont, C. (2011). Depth-dependent extension, two-stage
breakup and cratonic underplating at rifted margins. Nature, 473(7345), pp.7478.
25. Jarvis, G. and McKenzie, D. (1980). Sedimentary basin formation with finite
extension rates. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 48(1), pp.42-52.
26. Kamimura, A., Kasahara, J., Shinohara, M., Hino, R., Shiobara, H., Fujie, G. and
Kanazawa, T. (2002). Crustal structure study at the Izu-Bonin subduction zone
around 31N: implications of serpentinized materials along the subduction plate
boundary. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 132(1-3), pp.105-129.
27. Karner, G.D., Manatschal, G., Pinheiro, L.M. (2007). Imaging, Mapping and
Modelling Continental Lithosphere Extension and Breakup. Geological Society,
London, Special Publications, 282(1), pp.1-8.
28. Karner, G. and Driscoll, N. (1999). Style, timing and distribution of tectonic
deformation across the Exmouth Plateau, northwest Australia, determined from
stratal architecture and quantitative basin modelling. Geological Society, London,
Special Publications, 164(1), pp.271-311.
29. Kusznir, N., Hunsdale, R., Roberts, A. and iSIMM Team, (2005). Timing and
magnitude of depth-dependent lithosphere stretching on the southern Lofoten
127
and northern Vring continental margins offshore mid-Norway: implications for

subsidence
and
hydrocarbon
maturation
at
volcanic
rifted
margins.
In: Petroleum Geology: North-West Europe and Global Perspectives - Proceedings

of the 6th Petroleum Geology Conference. London: Geological Society, London,
pp.767-783.
30. Kusznir, N. and Karner, G. (2007). Continental lithospheric thinning and breakup
in response to upwelling divergent mantle flow: application to the Woodlark,
Newfoundland
and
Iberia
margins. Geological Society, London, Special
Publications, 282(1), pp.389-419.
31. Lavier, L. and Manatschal, G. (2006). A mechanism to thin the continental

lithosphere at magma-poor margins. Nature, 440(7082), pp.324-328.
32. Le Pichon, X. and Sibuet, J. (1981). Passive margins: A model of
formation. Journal of Geophysical Research, 86(B5), pp.3708-3720.
33. Longley, I., Buessenschuett, C., Clydsdale, L., Cubitt, C., Davis, R., Johnson, M.,
Marshall, N., Murray, A., Somerville, R., Spry, T. and Thompson, N. (2002). The
North West Shelf of Australia a Woodside perspective. In: M. Keep and S. Moss,
ed., The Sedimentary Basins of Western Australia 3: Proceedings of the Petroleum
Exploration Society of Australia Symposium. Perth, pp.27-88.
34. Lockwood, A. (2004). Western Australia Isostatic Residual Gravity Anomaly and
Depth to Basement Model. Perth: Government of Australia Department of
Industry and Resources, pp.1-33
35. Manatschal, G., Lavier, L. and Chenin, P. (2015). The role of inheritance in
structuring hyperextended rift systems: Some considerations based on
observations and numerical modeling. Gondwana Research, 27(1), pp.140-164.
36. Marshall, N.G. and Lang, S.C. (2013). A New Sequence Stratigraphic Framework
for the North West Shelf, Australia. In: West Austrailian Basins Symposium. Perth:
Petroleum Exploration Society of Austrailia, pp.1-32.
37. McKenzie, D. (1978). Some remarks on the development of sedimentary
basins. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 40(1), pp.25-32.
128
38. Metcalfe, I. (2013). Gondwanaland dispersion and Asian accretion: Tectonic and
palaeogeographic evolution of eastern Tethys. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences,
66, pp.1-33.
39. Nagel, T. and Buck, W. (2007). Control of rheological stratification on rifting

geometry: a symmetric model resolving the upper plate paradox. International
Journal of Earth Sciences, 96(6), pp.1047-1057.
40. Osmundsen, P. T., Sommaruga, A., Skilbrei, J. R., & Olesen, O. (2002). Deep
structure of the Mid Norway rifted margin. Norwegian Journal of Geology, 82,
205224.
41. OZ SEEBASE Study 2005, Public Domain Report to Shell Development Australia
by FrOG Tech Pty Ltd.
42. Prez-Gussiny, M. and Reston, T. (2001). Rheological evolution during

extension at nonvolcanic rifted margins: Onset of serpentinization and
development of detachments leading to continental breakup. J. Geophys. Res.,
106(B3), pp.3961-3975.
43. Peron-Pinvidic, G., Manatschal, G. and Osmundsen, P. (2013). Structural
comparison of archetypal Atlantic rifted margins: A review of observations and
concepts. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 43, pp.21-47.
44. Petrel, (2013). Magnetic map overlay provided by: Spatial Energy.
45. Repsol, (2015) Personal communication with the Australia Team. Visit to
Repsol HQ, Madrid, 8-10 June, 2015.
46. Reston, T., Gaw, V., Pennell, J., Klaeschen, D., Stubenrauch, A. and Walker, I.
(2004). Extreme crustal thinning in the south Porcupine Basin and the nature of
the Porcupine Median High: implications for the formation of non-volcanic rifted
margins. Journal of the Geological Society, 161(5), pp.783-798.
129
47. Reston, T. and Prez-Gussiny, M. (2007). Lithospheric extension from rifting to

continental breakup at magma-poor margins: rheology, serpentinisation and
symmetry. International Journal of Earth Sciences, 96(6), pp.1033-1046.
48. Sandwell, D. T.,Garcia, E., Soofi, K., Wessel, P. and Smith, W. H. F. (2013) Towards
1 mGal Global Marine Gravity from CryoSat-2, Envisat, and Jason-1, The Leading
Edge, 32(8), pp892-899.
49. Stagg, H.M.J., Alcock, M.B., Bernardel, G., Moore, A.M.G., Symonds, P.A. and Exon,
N.F. (2004). Geological framework of the outer Exmouth Plateau and adjacent
ocean basins. Geoscience Australia Record 2004/13.
50. Stochman, I., Gillchrist, G. and Kusznir, N. (2010). The breakup of the South
Atlantic Ocean: formation of failed spreading axes and blocks of thinned
continental crust in the Santos Basin, Brazil and its consequences for petroleum
system development. In: Petroleum Geology: From Mature Basins to New
Frontiers Proceedings of the 7th Petroleum Geology Conference. London:
Geological Society, London, pp.855-866.
51. Sutra, E., Manatschal, G., Mohn, G. and Unternehr, P. (2013). Quantification and
restoration of extensional deformation along the Western Iberia and
Newfoundland rifted margins. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 14(8),
pp.2575-2597.
52. Sutra, E. and Manatschal, G. (2012). How does the continental crust thin in a
hyperextended rifted margin? Insights from the Iberia margin. Geology, 40(2),
pp.139-142.
53. Turcotte, D. and Emerman, S. (1983). Mechanisms of active and passive
rifting. Tectonophysics, 94(1-4), pp.39-50.
54. Unternehr, P., Peron-Pinvidic, G., Manatschal, G., & Sutra, E. (2010). Hyperextended crust in the South Atlantic: in search of a model. Petroleum Geoscience,
16(3), 207215.
130
55. Warner, M. (1987). Seismic reflections from the Moho - the effect of
isostasy. Geophysical Journal International, 88(2), pp.425-435.
56. Wernicke, B. (1981). Low-angle normal faults in the Basin and Range Province:
nappe tectonics in an extending orogen. Nature, 291(5817), pp.645-648.
57. Wernicke, B. and Burchfiel, B. (1982). Modes of extensional tectonics. Journal of
Structural Geology, 4(2), pp.105-115.
58. White, R., McKenzie, D. and O'Nions, R. (1992). Oceanic crustal thickness from
seismic measurements and rare earth element inversions. Journal of Geophysical.
Research, 97(B13), pp.19683-19715.
59. Zuber, M. and Parmentier, E. (1986). Lithospheric necking: a dynamic model for
rift morphology. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 77(3), pp.373-383.
131
Appendix 1
Maps showing all provided surveys.
1.1.
All AGSO Regional Lines:
132
1.2.
All 2D Browse Lines:
133
1.3.
All 2D CarnavonLines:
134
Appendix 2
Results from different depth conversion scenarios.
2.1. Sensitivity to Velocity Models (sections are 2x vertically exaggerated):
2.1.1. Average Velocity Model:
2.1.2. -10% Scenario Velocity Model:
135
2.1.3. +10% Scenario Velocity Model:
2.1.4. Alternating 1 Scenario Velocity Model:
136
2.1.5. Alternating 2 Scenario Velocity Model:
2.2.
Sensitivity to Compaction Curves (all compaction curve scenarios

modelled from the average velocity scenario):
2.2.1. Christie/Slater Compaction Curve:
137
2.2.2. Baldwin/Butler Compaction Curve:
2.2.3. Dixon Compaction Curve:
138
Appendix 3
The process of backstripping: an example from line 120_01. Section will
be backstripped to Top Syn-R2.
3.1.
Original Section Interpretation:
3.2.
factor of 1 does not restore any of the section to sea level:
Flat Datum
139
3.3.
Restored to =1.05:
Flat Datum
Restored to sea level using a

beta factor of 1.05
3.4.
Restored to =1.1:
Flat Datum

beta factor of 1.05
Restored to
sea level using
a beta factor
of 1.1
140
3.5.
Restored to =1.15:
Flat Datum

beta factor of 1.05
3.6.
Restored to
sea level using
a beta factor
of 1.1
Restored to
sea level
using a beta
factor of
1.15
Restored to
sea level
using a beta
factor of 1.1
Restored to
sea level
using a beta
factor of
1.15
Restored to =1.2:
Flat Datum

beta factor of 1.05
Restored to
sea level
using a beta
factor of 1.2
141
3.7.
Restored to =1.25 (finished product):
Flat Datum
Restored to sea level using

a beta factor of 1.05
Restored to
sea level
using a beta
factor of 1.1
Restored
to sea level
using a
beta factor
of 1.15
Restored to
sea level
using a beta
factor of 1.2
Restored to sea level using

a beta factor of 1.25
142
Appendix 4
Seed grids (top image) and generated surfaces (bottom image) for key
horizons.
4.1.
Top Permian:
143
4.2.
Intra-Triassic:
144
4.3.
Early Jurassic:
145
4.4.
Top Syn-R2:
146
4.5.
Base Tertiary:
147
4.6.
Seabed:
148
Appendix 5
Supplementary location map as an insert to use whilst reading document.
149

Has Hyperextension Occurred On The Northwest Australian Shelf? The Effects of Pre-Existing Rift Architectures On Polyphase Rifted Margins.

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Has Hyperextension Occurred On The Northwest Australian Shelf? The Effects of Pre-Existing Rift Architectures On Polyphase Rifted Margins.

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Has Hyperextension Occurred on the

Northwest Australian Shelf?

Declaration of Academic Integrity

To be attached to any essay, Dissertation, or project work submitted for

I have read the University regulations on Cheating and Plagiarism, and I

MSc Structural Geology with Geophysics.

2. Aims & Objectives______________________________________________________________23

3. Data Quality & Availability________________________________________________25

main hydrocarbon producing fields [Marshall & Lang, 2013].

of extension [after Buck et al, 1988].

Strength-depth profiles contrasting lithospheric necking and lithospheric

faulting [after Lavier & Manatschal, 2006].

Strength-depth profiles showing three variants of the jelly sandwich

Numerical model of lithospheric extension [after Kusznir et al, 2005].

Model of the evolution of a hyperextended rifted margin [after Nagel &

Schematic section of a hyperextended rift invoking a series of convex-

down faults [Lavier & Manatschal, 2006].

Diagram defining domains of a hyperextended margin [after Sutra et al,

2013; Manatschal et al, 2015].

Series of diagrams showing the evolution of the hyperextension and

depth dependent stretching end members of crustal extension [after

Strength-depth profiles contrasting extension from a slow rift with that

of a fast rift event.

Diagrams showing the difference between structure of an idealised

lithosphere and a real lithosphere [Manatschal et al, 2015].

Evolutionary section showing the evolution of asymmetric rifted margins

[Brune et al, 2014].

Summary image showing the tectonic history of the NW shelf [compiled

Summary image showing the sequence stratigraphic classification for the

NW shelf and palaeogeographic maps of the NW shelf [compiled from

Palaeogeographic map showing a Permian rifting event [Stagg et al,

Maps of the NW shelf showing sediment thicknesses and crustal

thicknesses [Goncharov, 2004].

Section through the Northern Carnavon Basin from gravity foreward

modelling [Belgarde et al, 2015].

Satellite free-air gravity map of the NW shelf [Sandwell et al, 2013].

Aeromagnetic anomaly map of the NW Shelf with basin outlines marked

Location map showing the position of the Huntsman 1 well.

Chronostratigraphic chart showing key horizons provided by Repsol

Image showing multiples in section 128_01.

Image showing migration smiles in section 95_07.

Image showing the effects of annealing on section 128_05.

Seismic section 120_01 showing the degradation of seismic imaging with

Image showing the difference in seismic imaging between surveys

120_03 and db98_224.

Image of a gravity high showing the cross-referencing process between

gravity, magnetic anomaly and bathymetry maps.

Image of the Argo Abyssal Plain showing alignment of magnetic

anomalies in oceanic crust.

120_14, 120_01 and 128_03.

Segment of line 120_01 showing the process of inferring the basement

Segment of line 128_03 showing the process of inferring the moho.

Velocity model for the NW shelf.

Thickness maps between: Seabed - Top Permian, Seabed - Base Tertiary,

Satellite image showing the bathymetry of the NW Australian shelf [after

Google Maps, 2015].

Interpreted gravity map of the NW shelf.

Interpreted magnetic map of the NW shelf.

Images of section 120_01 showing: (A) section with Mesozoic/Cenozoic

horizons interpreted; (B) the uninterpreted section; (C) the section

Partial sections of line 120_01 showing two synforms present in the

Representative partial section showing horizons between the Top

Permian and the Seabed, and their internal structure.